|
jt512
Jun 22, 2010, 9:16 PM
Post #151 of 191
(11106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
JimTitt wrote: The current issue of Panorama (the DAV magazine, 3.2010 http://cms.alpenverein.de/download_file.php?id=6589&showfile=1) reports 6 cases of serious injury from belaying failures with the Cinch and statistically the accident rate is 21 times that of the Grigri and 112 times that of ATC style devices.
For the benefit of those of us who can't read German, could you possibly explain how they collect and compute those statistics?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Jun 22, 2010, 9:22 PM
Post #152 of 191
(11101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
kostik wrote: redlude97 wrote: Look closely at the pictures. The mag is advocating to flip the cinch upside down and then using it horizontally, not the same as your case, notice how it causes the belay loop to twitch. On Abb2 the Cinch is not flipped upside down. The picture on the left overemphasizes tilting the device to the left. The pic in the middle and in the circle shows that the cinch is tilted to the left, but not clipped to the biner upside down. This brings more friction into the system and gives the belayer more control over the rope. You can use the advantage of google translator to read the text. 
Yes it is. In ABB2 it clearly is used upside down. Look at the loop created in the first picture. Notice how they are locking the cinch to the right side in the last pic, this would be physically impossible if the cinch is installed right side up, the device will rotate back to verticle in any fall. In their case it stays horizontal because of the torquing of the belay loop and carabiner.
(This post was edited by redlude97 on Jun 22, 2010, 9:24 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
Cinchupsidedown.jpg
(47.1 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
kostik
Jun 22, 2010, 9:28 PM
Post #153 of 191
(11092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275
|
jt512 wrote: When you catch a fall, the rope goes from the belay device up to an anchor and then down to the climber. This is true whether the climber is top roping or leading. Therefore, it is very difficult to see why, if the Cinch can safely be held vertically for TR belaying, it cannot be safely held vertically for lead belaying. Jay
You need to borrow a cinch and play with it.
The Cinch locks easily in a vertical position. When belaying TR, it is constantly locked and you pull the rope from the breaking end, just like grigri. When you are belaying a leader, you need to pull the rope out of the other end. When held vertically the cinch locks very easily, but there is a position of the plates when it is open, and the rope goes through it without impediment, like through a pipe.
This is when it becomes dangerous. This position of the plates is very exact. A millimeter right or left and he cinch locks the rope. But when the climber falls and the cinch plates are in this precise position, the rope will just fly through the device without locking it.
When you hold it on its side, and the rope pulls, this dangerous position of the plates is skipped during quick rotation and the cinch locks the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jun 22, 2010, 9:28 PM
Post #154 of 191
(11090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: majid_sabet wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: majid_sabet wrote: if you pull a n00b off the street and give him a climbing gear and ask him to manage it then walk away. did you just walked away from a climber and based on your logic, you still think that was his responsibility to find out for himself ? Dude, that happens every day. They're called REI salespeople.  On another note, the answer is somewhere between being responsible and having no responsibility whatsoever. There is NO teacher or instructor anywhere in the world in any subject matter that is expected to guide a student entirely through their learning. That is just unrealistic. The fact of the matter is that it is a student's responsibility to learn. Should the teacher provide quality instruction? Absolutely! But, in the end, no matter how qualified and excellent a teacher is, some people just can't learn certain things. Sometimes a student may be doing fine under supervision, but when asked to recall it later has trouble. You can't blame a teacher for that. This is a terrible tragedy, for sure, but outside of obvious negligence, you cannot blame instruction. Josh You guys love to blame the problem on some one else cause you like to see things in black and white. if a student fails and kills some one , is always his problem but no dudes. if a child goes and become pregnant in 13, that should be her problem right ? Responsibility does not end once you pass the belay device to a inexperienced climber. you need to make sure that this child can apply brake, steers the wheel and controls the entire thing before you walk away. This is call teaching. you either give it full or you do not. Look, I know English isn't your first language, but if you're not even going to attempt to understand what I wrote, then I don't know what else to do. What you are not understanding, is that an instructor could be perfect, do everything right, and even go above and beyond what is asked of them...and the student could STILL screw it up. This is not a 7-year-old we're talking about. These were adults. You seem to be implying that all climbing instructors need to follow their students around for the rest of their lives. Am I missing something? Josh Edited to say: the pregnant 13 year-old is their parent's problem, not their climbing instructors 
I did not say that instructors have to follow their students forever to see what they do. instructors must make sure that students know what they are doing before they let go and that is point I am trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Jun 22, 2010, 9:43 PM
Post #155 of 191
(11076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
kostik wrote: jt512 wrote: When you catch a fall, the rope goes from the belay device up to an anchor and then down to the climber. This is true whether the climber is top roping or leading. Therefore, it is very difficult to see why, if the Cinch can safely be held vertically for TR belaying, it cannot be safely held vertically for lead belaying. Jay You need to borrow a cinch and play with it. The Cinch locks easily in a vertical position. When belaying TR, it is constantly locked and you pull the rope from the breaking end, just like grigri. When you are belaying a leader, you need to pull the rope out of the other end. When held vertically the cinch locks very easily, but there is a position of the plates when it is open, and the rope goes through it without impediment, like through a pipe. This is when it becomes dangerous. This position of the plates is very exact. A millimeter right or left and he cinch locks the rope. But when the climber falls and the cinch plates are in this precise position, the rope will just fly through the device without locking it. When you hold it on its side, and the rope pulls, this dangerous position of the plates is skipped during quick rotation and the cinch locks the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
kostik
Jun 22, 2010, 9:47 PM
Post #156 of 191
(11073 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275
|
redlude97 wrote: Yes it is. In ABB2 it clearly is used upside down. Look at the loop created in the first picture. Notice how they are locking the cinch to the right side in the last pic, this would be physically impossible if the cinch is installed right side up, the device will rotate back to verticle in any fall. In their case it stays horizontal because of the torquing of the belay loop and carabiner.
OK, I understand what you mean 'upside down'. Actually, this is how I clip the cinch. It adds friction to the system and prevents what's shown on Abb1. Still, even if you clip as shown on Abb1, you can still avoid dropping the climber by holding the device flat on its side. When the rope yanks, the device turns, and the rotating plates will skip the open position. If you hold it vertically to begin with, chances are that the plates will not rotate, and the cinch will remain open.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Jun 22, 2010, 9:51 PM
Post #157 of 191
(11069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
kostik wrote: redlude97 wrote: Yes it is. In ABB2 it clearly is used upside down. Look at the loop created in the first picture. Notice how they are locking the cinch to the right side in the last pic, this would be physically impossible if the cinch is installed right side up, the device will rotate back to verticle in any fall. In their case it stays horizontal because of the torquing of the belay loop and carabiner. OK, I understand what you mean 'upside down'. Actually, this is how I clip the cinch. It adds friction to the system and prevents what's shown on Abb1. Still, even if you clip as shown on Abb1, you can still avoid dropping the climber by holding the device flat on its side. When the rope yanks, the device turns, and the rotating plates will skip the open position. If you hold it vertically to begin with, chances are that the plates will not rotate, and the cinch will remain open.
|
|
|
|
|
kostik
Jun 22, 2010, 10:01 PM
Post #158 of 191
(11060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275
|
redlude97 wrote: The straightest path through the cinch when held perfectly vertical is towards your face, you have to rotate it with your pinched fingers to get that position to point to the first bolt to easily feed slack, the same reason it keeps locking up on you when feeding vertically.
You never want to point it to the first bolt when feeding slack. Yes, it is easy to feed the slack in this position, but your hand is all that is holding the rope in this moment. There is no friction in the device whatsoever. See Abb1.
I always feed the slack on the left side. If I am not attentive, I can shortrope my climber, but there is always enough friction in the system to lock the cinch during sudden fall.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Jun 22, 2010, 10:12 PM
Post #159 of 191
(11043 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
Okay, okay, I'll jump in. First of all, during all of our testing, we found it virtually impossible to hold the Cinch open when it's threaded and held according to our instructions. We have gone to the gym, stacked pads and hucked ourselves and our crash-test dummies off of lead route to try to keep it open while using the pinch and three-finger brake. We can't do it. Here's our problem with Willie's method: it's much easier to short-rope your leader when his method is used and then problems occur when people try to release it using the tab. The other issue I have is that it's super-awkward to hold the Cinch, pinched between your thumb and index finger with your brake fingers on the rope, in a vertical orientation. Try it. It is much more natural to turn it sideways which we all think is better anyway. This thing I think is interesting is that the position the Cinch ends up in using either Willie's or our method, is the same. There's just a different twist in the belay loop.
Climb safe,
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
iknowfear
Jun 22, 2010, 10:17 PM
Post #160 of 191
(11036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 670
|
First they did a survey of 1038 Climbers (in Germany); device used:
56 % Tuber
25 % Munter
15 % Eight (!)
8 % Autoblockers (7% GriGri 1% Cinch); (Interestingly, in german they are called Halbautomaten, which translates to semi-automat)
The statistics are just taken from current accident reports. I guess Jim Titt extrapolated these numbers based on the usage rate.
|
|
|
|
|
kostik
Jun 22, 2010, 10:23 PM
Post #161 of 191
(11028 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275
|
maldaly wrote: Okay, okay, I'll jump in. First of all, during all of our testing, we found it virtually impossible to hold the Cinch open when it's threaded and held according to our instructions. We have gone to the gym, stacked pads and hucked ourselves and our crash-test dummies off of lead route to try to keep it open while using the pinch and three-finger brake. We can't do it. Here's our problem with Willie's method: it's much easier to short-rope your leader when his method is used and then problems occur when people try to release it using the tab. The other issue I have is that it's super-awkward to hold the Cinch, pinched between your thumb and index finger with your brake fingers on the rope, in a vertical orientation. Try it. It is much more natural to turn it sideways which we all think is better anyway. This thing I think is interesting is that the position the Cinch ends up in using either Willie's or our method, is the same. There's just a different twist in the belay loop. l
Exactly! Turn it sideways. Anticipate how much slack the climber needs and feed it out on the left side.
I did not have problems with pinch and three fingers method as long as I kept my attention to the climber and fed out exactly the amount of slack he needed.
I would suggest that Trango plays more with the Cinch and indicates the dangerous positions, like how it is not to be used. Pointing it to the first bolt 'for easy feeding' is one of those.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jun 22, 2010, 10:23 PM
Post #162 of 191
(11028 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Kostik please take a picture of what you're talking about because i'd much rather see it than try to read german or whatever explanation you're trying here..
i'll edit this with my pic in a bit.
i believe i use the horizontal way also just wasn't understanding how you were saying it
(This post was edited by jakedatc on Jun 22, 2010, 10:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
karmiclimber
Jun 22, 2010, 10:26 PM
Post #163 of 191
(11020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 1058
|
jt512 wrote: karmiclimber wrote: I think that is why I stick with the ATC....its what I learned to belay on, so why change it up... If by "ATC" you mean the classic ATC (as opposed to ATC-dash-something), then you should change, because it is doubtful whether your belay device provides enough friction to control a severe fall with the current generation of ropes. Jay
I learned how to belay on a standard ATC, but since switched to a ATC XP and/or reverso.
What do you mean by In reply to: with the current generation of ropes
|
|
|
|
|
karmiclimber
Jun 22, 2010, 10:28 PM
Post #164 of 191
(11013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 1058
|
redlude97 wrote: karmiclimber wrote: In reply to: jomagam wrote:Rgold really ? You wish climbing gear came with no instructions ? If I said anything related to that, it is that people don't attend to the instructions that are provided and ignore the manufacturers warnings. The instructions and warnings are a legality, or am I wrong? IE the manufacturers put them there to avoid sue-age. In reply to: If you basically don't know how to use it, haven't practiced with it, haven't thought about and worked through its idiosyncrasies, and then you literally take someone else's life in your hands, then I don't think anyone should be looking around for external sources of responsibility for the consequences. Honest question. How does one practice with, say a cinch, to become competent with it? It seems that even in practice, you are going to be putting someone at risk, no? I think that is why I stick with the ATC....its what I learned to belay on, so why change it up... How did you practice with the ATC? Aren't you putting someone at risk while you learned how to use it? The cinch is no different. If you learned proper technique to start, and follow that, and don't do anything you aren't supposed to, the worst that happens is you shortrope your climber, which is the intention is practicing they shouldn't be climbing anything where this is an issue, or you have a slow and jerky lower. These same things happen with a noob on an atc. You can back up a cinch belayer the same way by putting someone on the brake strand.
Yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 22, 2010, 10:36 PM
Post #165 of 191
(11007 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
karmiclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: karmiclimber wrote: I think that is why I stick with the ATC....its what I learned to belay on, so why change it up... If by "ATC" you mean the classic ATC (as opposed to ATC-dash-something), then you should change, because it is doubtful whether your belay device provides enough friction to control a severe fall with the current generation of ropes. Jay I learned how to belay on a standard ATC, but since switched to a ATC XP and/or reverso. What do you mean by In reply to: with the current generation of ropes ? I have one 9.8mm, but its about to be made into a rug because its a piece of crap. The rest are 10 something and above.
Basically, ropes less than about 10.5 mm in diameter.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Jun 22, 2010, 10:50 PM
Post #166 of 191
(10993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
kostik wrote: maldaly wrote: Okay, okay, I'll jump in. First of all, during all of our testing, we found it virtually impossible to hold the Cinch open when it's threaded and held according to our instructions. We have gone to the gym, stacked pads and hucked ourselves and our crash-test dummies off of lead route to try to keep it open while using the pinch and three-finger brake. We can't do it. Here's our problem with Willie's method: it's much easier to short-rope your leader when his method is used and then problems occur when people try to release it using the tab. The other issue I have is that it's super-awkward to hold the Cinch, pinched between your thumb and index finger with your brake fingers on the rope, in a vertical orientation. Try it. It is much more natural to turn it sideways which we all think is better anyway. This thing I think is interesting is that the position the Cinch ends up in using either Willie's or our method, is the same. There's just a different twist in the belay loop. l Exactly! Turn it sideways. Anticipate how much slack the climber needs and feed it out on the left side. I did not have problems with pinch and three fingers method as long as I kept my attention to the climber and fed out exactly the amount of slack he needed. I would suggest that Trango plays more with the Cinch and indicates the dangerous positions, like how it is not to be used. Pointing it to the first bolt 'for easy feeding' is one of those.
maldaly wrote: First of all, during all of our testing, we found it virtually impossible to hold the Cinch open when it's threaded and held according to our instructions. We have gone to the gym, stacked pads and hucked ourselves and our crash-test dummies off of lead route to try to keep it open while using the pinch and three-finger brake. We can't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
kostik
Jun 22, 2010, 11:31 PM
Post #167 of 191
(10954 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275
|
redlude97 wrote: kostik wrote: Pointing it to the first bolt 'for easy feeding' is one of those.How did you get that from Malcom's statements?
It's not from his statement, it's from my own experiments with the Cinch. If the rope comes too easily out of it, it means it is not bent or kinked by anything inside, i.e. it goes through the device like through a pipe, with no friction and only your hand is holding it at this moment. If you point it at the 1st bolt in this position and the rope yanks suddenly at this moment, there is a chance that the rope will not engage the cam. And it will be your hand vs climber's weight.
jakedatc :
Yes, your pic shows exactly how hold the cinch. The biner may be clipped into it differently, but as long as you hold it on a side, it should be safe.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Jun 22, 2010, 11:54 PM
Post #168 of 191
(10940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
kostik wrote: redlude97 wrote: kostik wrote: Pointing it to the first bolt 'for easy feeding' is one of those.How did you get that from Malcom's statements? It's not from his statement, it's from my own experiments with the Cinch. If the rope comes too easily out of it, it means it is not bent or kinked by anything inside, i.e. it goes through the device like through a pipe, with no friction and only your hand is holding it at this moment. If you point it at the 1st bolt in this position and the rope yanks suddenly at this moment, there is a chance that the rope will not engage the cam. And it will be your hand vs climber's weight.
|
|
|
|
|
kostik
Jun 23, 2010, 12:05 AM
Post #169 of 191
(10933 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275
|
redlude97 wrote: I don't think you understand how the cinch works. As soon as your hand applies any resistance to the rope the cinch will rotate out of this orientation and the cam will activate. Try it, clip the first bolt on any climb(or sling any high point), downclimb or lower, then orient the cinch so that the "climber" on the other end of the rope can slowly pull rope through from the cinch and then have them give it a hard tug, or simply tighten your grip on the rope. The cinch will lock up. I've tested this myself. Its like you said, the orientation has to be perfect, within mm's for it to feed, and anything that disturbs this will cause the cinch to lock up(like a falling climber or a clamp onto the rope).
I've done this experiment many times. Yes, the cinch locked the rope all the time when held sideways, but only most of the time when held vertically. There was a small percentage when it did not lock. And this is what makes pointing to the first bolt dangerous.
I think this discussion is pointless without proper study by Trango or some other reliable lab.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jun 23, 2010, 12:19 AM
Post #170 of 191
(10918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
I'm sick of this imprecise non technical discussion about the cinch!
Belay devices' function depends on central three aspects.
**The angle and orientation of climber & brake ropes entering and leaving the device.
**The force applied to those ropes.
**The influence (if any) of physical contact with the device in aiding or preventing it from locking.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All this talk about orientation of the device seems to be not understanding how these devices operate. My impression from some of kostics remarks as well as the german article is that the cinch will have difficulty locking off if the rope is held with an entry-exist angle of 180degrees (straight through). Is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
kostik
Jun 23, 2010, 12:22 AM
Post #171 of 191
(10911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275
|
patto wrote: My impression from some of kostics remarks as well as the german article is that the cinch will have difficulty locking off if the rope is held with an entry-exist angle of 180degrees (straight through). Is this true?
Correct
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jun 23, 2010, 12:44 AM
Post #172 of 191
(10900 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
kostik wrote: patto wrote: My impression from some of kostics remarks as well as the german article is that the cinch will have difficulty locking off if the rope is held with an entry-exist angle of 180degrees (straight through). Is this true? Correct
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jun 23, 2010, 12:47 AM
Post #173 of 191
(10897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
patto wrote: kostik wrote: patto wrote: My impression from some of kostics remarks as well as the german article is that the cinch will have difficulty locking off if the rope is held with an entry-exist angle of 180degrees (straight through). Is this true? Correct Thats is a big claim. That seems quite unsafe if that is the case. The written instructions suggest that this is fine. Though I don't have access to a Cinch so I can't really check its veracity.
I suggest you listen to Malcolm over Kostik since he is the one who has done extensive testing with his own product and Kostik is simple one user with unknown amount of experience.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 23, 2010, 12:51 AM
Post #174 of 191
(10892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: I'm sick of this imprecise non technical discussion about the cinch! Belay devices' function depends on central three aspects. **The angle and orientation of climber & brake ropes entering and leaving the device. **The force applied to those ropes. **The influence (if any) of physical contact with the device in aiding or preventing it from locking. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All this talk about orientation of the device seems to be not understanding how these devices operate. My impression from some of kostics remarks as well as the german article is that the cinch will have difficulty locking off if the rope is held with an entry-exist angle of 180degrees (straight through). Is this true?
Speaking of imprecision, what does "this" refer to? Are you asking if it is true that kostik and the author of the German article believe that there is difficulty with the Cinch locking in some circumstance, or are you asking if it is true that there is difficulty with the Cinch locking in some circumstance?
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 23, 2010, 12:51 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Jun 23, 2010, 1:23 AM
Post #175 of 191
(10863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
kostik wrote: redlude97 wrote: I don't think you understand how the cinch works. As soon as your hand applies any resistance to the rope the cinch will rotate out of this orientation and the cam will activate. Try it, clip the first bolt on any climb(or sling any high point), downclimb or lower, then orient the cinch so that the "climber" on the other end of the rope can slowly pull rope through from the cinch and then have them give it a hard tug, or simply tighten your grip on the rope. The cinch will lock up. I've tested this myself. Its like you said, the orientation has to be perfect, within mm's for it to feed, and anything that disturbs this will cause the cinch to lock up(like a falling climber or a clamp onto the rope). I've done this experiment many times. Yes, the cinch locked the rope all the time when held sideways, but only most of the time when held vertically. There was a small percentage when it did not lock. And this is what makes pointing to the first bolt dangerous. I think this discussion is pointless without proper study by Trango or some other reliable lab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
