BD atc guide vs Reverso

Why is there so much grief about lowering? All one must do is clip a locker into the shelf, set a munter on it via the brake strand, hook the nose of the autoblock with a biner, and control the descent via the munter... It's not rocket science, and the munter should be part of every climber's arsenal.

Edit: The only potentially difficult situation that I've run into is lowering only one follower when there are 2 followers on double ropes. But even then the same applies, but one must tie off the follower who does not need to lower. Other skills apply, but if a leader does not know the basic self rescue techniques involved in these situations, in my opinion, he or she should not yet be leading.

rgold wrote:I don't really disagree with your points BB, but the proof is often in the pudding. The fact that it is easy to do things right doesn't mean that they get done right. Maybe. I'm talking about a bit more than the rope being "constantly pulled up," that would be an expected feature of minimally competent belaying no matter what technique is used. I'm talking about pulling on the second. It really is possible to do very long free climbs quickly and safely without having the second on tension half the time, with or without an autoblock belay. But as I said, there's an awful lot of autoblock belayers who can't seem to manage this. In any case, you are only making these points for some undefined "long multi." What exactly is that? Three pitches? Ten pitches? Twenty pitches? I don't see any inclination of autoblock belayers to change techniques on shorter climbs, where whatever considerations might be in place for "long multi" are utterly irrelevant. Well, this is a matter to be decided by the party. I personally don't find the idea of doing a long free climb in such a way that I've used aid for half the pitches attractive, but others may differ. And once again, what about three-pitch climbs? Is the second "there" to free one or two pitches on top rope for those, because as I said, I see no evidence that autobelaying belayers change their practices. Personally, I almost never redirect. But the direct munter is identical to the autoblock as far as feeling tension in the climber's line is concerned. In any case, the ability to feel tension in the line more easily is of no use if the belayer doesn't do something about it, which is the issue I raised. Of course, there is a reason related to the devices themselves for this. It is more awkward and complex to let a little slack back out through an autoblock device, especially if the second is stepping down (or back on a diagonal line) and so creating at least some rope tension. It takes two hands too, including the one that is holding the sandwich. So the combination of encouraged belayer inattention and the fact that paying out slack is more involved for the autoblock belay means that slack doesn't get payed out a lot of the time, regardless of whether or not it its easier to feel tension in the line. As I said, if the rope runs over a big ceiling or diagonally at a hard crux, the ability of the inattentively-tended autoblock to pull the second off is not any kind of advantage. Yes, but I'm talking about super slow for your Group I and Group II belayers. Mal Daly gives an example of an hour for a twenty-foot lower on the Kelly Cordes thread you linked. The belayer had a two-bolt anchor at eye level too. Yup. But the crags are full of people who are autoblock beginners, even if perhaps experienced in other ways, and the crags are even fuller of people who haven't practiced autoblock lowering in realistic circumstances ever, much less twice a year.

well not to argue ...

but i consider "long" multi as 10+ pitches personally ... other may have different definitions ... in such circumstances speed is often safety, if you need to get hauled up, you get hauled up, you dont waste time trying to "free" the pitch on TR if theres afternoon thundershowers as is common in the canadian rockies, or waste time rather than get to the top while theres still light and not having to do the descent in the dark ... and you dont lower off a pitch unless theres an emergency ... also the chance of rockfall with all that rock and other climbers above you is significantly increased

its absolutely "easy" to belay just fine while eating a sandwich in autoblock ... and safely ... if youre always having "tension" in your line and dont want that then thats a conversation you need to have with your belayer ... it happens regardless of belay method ... people do that all the time even on TR or with redirected belays

as to feeding rope when not under tension ... you DONT need to take your hand off at all ... simply tie a slip knot and put your arm in the bight ... now you have both hands free and are back uped ... takes 3 sec ... you can use this if you need to open yr bag to get a sandwich, or if you want to lock off one second while pulling the rope up the other second









you MAY be able to lower short distances under load with a biner in the notch on a guide ... hits does NOT work on a smart (nor does the biner pump)



OR you could simply do this if there is no tension and you want to feed slack ... grab the rope and then tilt the device keeping a good hand on the brake .... simplest and easiest way ....



the problem is not with autoblock ... the well respected and experienced climbers ive quote all use it ... as go most guides ive met, and they climb with clients daily

the problem is the with people who dont understand it and use a device/system ... its no different from beginners using gri gris without understanding them, using ATCs without learning how to belay properly, building gear anchors without real experience, rapping using prussics but not having developed good rope control etc ...

;)

They are effectively identical devices. Either one has the same fundamental functions.

Personally I prefer the Reverso because it's intelligently orientated hanger hole and its smoother operation.

And its not BD. ;)

I have used a reverso with a 9.2, 9.4 and a 9.8 and all have had smooth operations, easy to pull through and still locks in a second fall. You do need to pull up with the climbers side as you are taking slack, but this has not been a a problem for me.

Lowering I have never had to do in practice, but I have played with it at home and found that puting the carabiner directly into the small hole is difficult and is hard to lower with. I found that girth hitching a sling through it and using it almost as a pulley offset to one anchor is very controlled and effective. This was also using a very thick static rope so I am assuming with a standard dynamic rope less than 10mm it will be easier.

I like the Guide because its design suits men who are not whiney ass pussies.

not Whining here, just asking which device is best before me before I go buy one.

I started off buying a BD ATC guide, and really didn't like it because of a huge amount of friction. I found myself borrowing a Reverso most of the time, until I finally just bought my own Reverso, and I am much happier with it. Also, last time I checked, the Reverso has a much larger nose hook for lowering / letting out tension than the ATC Guide. Go with the Reverso.

Seems a pretty easy choice. The Reverso is much better with sub 10mm ropes and is lighter weight. The ATC guide is beefier and better with everything in the larger range.

If you are using a nice hefty 10+mm rope for your climbing you will hate life with a Reverso.

Jake Jones wrote:^ I agree with this. Even on bolted belays, there's no reason why you can't just extend yourself away from the bolts a little then redirect through your anchor. Then it's just business as usual. I think unless you're belaying two followers, there's not much of a reason to use it. Top belay in autoblock mode is especially a pain (when compared to just belaying off your harness) should your climber need to be lowered.

Sorry to continue the conversation on direct vs. redirect, but there's some crucial information that no one has mentioned yet...

In the event of a fall when belaying from the top of a pitch, redirecting through the anchor doubles the amount of force applied to the anchor compared with belaying directly off the anchor in autoblock mode, or directly off the harness.

To hold a fall when redirecting, the tension in the belay strand must equal the tension in the climber's strand; i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 2x the force generated by the fall.

To hold a fall directly off the anchor in autoblock mode (or directly off the harness, or in a hip belay for that matter) the tension in the climber's strand is the only component of force applied to the anchor, i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 1x the force generated by the fall.

Not to mention the fact that you can now use your hands to eat a clif bar, drink some water, reorganize gear, etc.

When top roping with the belayer at the bottom of the pitch (e.g. working a single pitch route) the magnification of force generated by redirecting through the anchor is mitigated by the amount of rope available to stretch in the system, making this an acceptable application for redirecting.

I can't think of any situation in which I would redirect the belay through the anchor when belaying from the top of a pitch. If concerned about the "time-consuming" process of rigging the device or transitioning to leading, or the "difficulty" of lowering the follower on a taught rope, you should practice these skills more before multi-pitch climbing.

If I somehow found myself at the top of a pitch without an autoblocking belay device, I would reconsider my level of preparedness for the climb, curse myself for forgetting such an essential piece of equipment, and proceed to belay directly off the anchor with a munter hitch (or directly off the harness if I had a non-autoblocking belay device).

To address the OP,
The Reverso and the ATC Guide are the gold standard in autoblocking belay devices; they are definitely the most popular devices for top-belaying on multi-pitch routes. The ATC Guide has a smoother pull and is more durable, while the Reverso is considerably lighter. I personally use the ATC Guide for multi-pitch and a GriGri for single-pitch climbing.

You...do realize that this thread is 4 years old, right? And also irrelevant after the invention of the DMM Pivot. Seriously, the thing makes lowering a follower a breeze.

Jack Taylor 1 wrote: Sorry to continue the conversation on direct vs. redirect, but there's some crucial information that no one has mentioned yet... In the event of a fall when belaying from the top of a pitch, redirecting through the anchor doubles the amount of force applied to the anchor compared with belaying directly off the anchor in autoblock mode, or directly off the harness. To hold a fall when redirecting, the tension in the belay strand must equal the tension in the climber's strand; i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 2x the force generated by the fall. To hold a fall directly off the anchor in autoblock mode (or directly off the harness, or in a hip belay for that matter) the tension in the climber's strand is the only component of force applied to the anchor, i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 1x the force generated by the fall. Not to mention the fact that you can now use your hands to eat a clif bar, drink some water, reorganize gear, etc. When top roping with the belayer at the bottom of the pitch (e.g. working a single pitch route) the magnification of force generated by redirecting through the anchor is mitigated by the amount of rope available to stretch in the system, making this an acceptable application for redirecting. I can't think of any situation in which I would redirect the belay through the anchor when belaying from the top of a pitch. If concerned about the "time-consuming" process of rigging the device or transitioning to leading, or the "difficulty" of lowering the follower on a taught rope, you should practice these skills more before multi-pitch climbing. If I somehow found myself at the top of a pitch without an autoblocking belay device, I would reconsider my level of preparedness for the climb, curse myself for forgetting such an essential piece of equipment, and proceed to belay directly off the anchor with a munter hitch (or directly off the harness if I had a non-autoblocking belay device). To address the OP, The Reverso and the ATC Guide are the gold standard in autoblocking belay devices; you will rarely meet a guide who uses anything else for top-belaying on multi-pitch routes. The ATC Guide has a smoother pull and is more durable, while the Reverso is considerably lighter. I personally use the ATC Guide for multi-pitch and a GriGri for single-pitch climbing.

If you are redirecting a second then the maximum amount of force seen by the anchor should be approximately 2X the body weight of the climber. If that is enough to compromise your anchor then you have a real problem.

It is common practice to climb the anchor, perhaps lowering the belayer, when leading from the belay station to prevent a fall factor 2 situation.

Lot's of multi-pitch climbing occurred before auto-block devices were available.

Jack Taylor 1 wrote: In the event of a fall when belaying from the top of a pitch, redirecting through the anchor doubles the amount of force applied to the anchor compared with belaying directly off the anchor in autoblock mode, or directly off the harness. To hold a fall when redirecting, the tension in the belay strand must equal the tension in the climber's strand; i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 2x the force generated by the fall.

So what? Are the anchors you build THAT bad?

Ted Pinson wrote:You...do realize that this thread is 4 years old, right? And also irrelevant after the invention of the DMM Pivot. Seriously, the thing makes lowering a follower a breeze.

Exactly this.

It has already been mentioned, but I'll be a little less subtle - answer today is DMM Pivot!

I have owned every generation of Reverso and Reversino and Guide and the Pivot is a subtle but significant improvement over them. For simple lead or autoblock belaying it feels smoother and nicer. When belaying a second on multipitch, due it's unique pivot feature, I feel confident lowering a second. Lowering on a Guide or Reverso is actually quite dangerous, it is easy to go from 100% tension to dropping a partner.

I have always been impressed with DMM quality and craftsmanship but the additional functionality of the pivot feature makes it the easy win in this category.

alpinist.com/doc/web16f/ms-…

Yeah, I bought mine for the autoblock functionality but was pleasantly surprised by how well it handles for leading. Normally, I prefer to use assisted breaking devices when catching people heavier than myself (rare, since I'm 190 lbs, but there are a few I climb with), but I've caught heavier climbers repeatedly with no rope slip. It's also a nice weight, closer to the Reverso than the noticeably heavy ATC Guide.

The rope being used is a big consideration for how smooth a belay device is too. I have a 9.9 Maxim (can't remember which) that is the absolute worst rope in the world for belaying both regular and guide mode. I have a 10.5 (I believe it is also a Maxim) that is much much better and smoother going through the belay device. Most of my skinnier ropes 9.7-9.4 are pretty good regardless of the device.

Jack Taylor 1 wrote: there's some crucial information that no one has mentioned yet... In the event of a fall when belaying from the top of a pitch, redirecting through the anchor doubles the amount of force applied to the anchor compared with belaying directly off the anchor in autoblock mode, or directly off the harness. To hold a fall when redirecting, the tension in the belay strand must equal the tension in the climber's strand; i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 2x the force generated by the fall. To hold a fall directly off the anchor in autoblock mode (or directly off the harness, or in a hip belay for that matter) the tension in the climber's strand is the only component of force applied to the anchor, i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 1x the force generated by the fall.

Well, lets continue the conversation then.

Yes, a redirect does increase the load by about 1.7x. It would be 2x if your redirect were a frictionless pulley. But, due to friction, it is less.

But, if the belayer is hanging from the anchor, there is virtually no difference in load when the follower falls, redirect or auto block.

As others have mentioned, if your anchor is not good enough for a top rope fall, you've got other issues. Top rope falls can generate 600-700lbf with a heavy follower and too much slack in the system. IIRC from some tests intentionally attempting to generate high loads from top rope maxed out at 900 lbf. But, it would be hard to get more than that in most situations. Any decent anchor should be able to hold that easily.

But, on rare occasions, you may have an anchor that is totally shit. Poor rock, ran out of gear, ran out of rope, etc. Best to avoid this altogether. But, if you climb long enough, it will happen. In this case you need to do the ABC, anchor-belayer-climber. Anchor on top, belayer in the middle, climber below. Belayer positions himself with no slack below anchor and braces himself with his feet, butt, body, whatever, then belays off his harness and tries to protect anchor from seeing much load. Far from ideal.

Josh Janes wrote:Actually the new leader doesn't have to clip in at all to switch over when swinging leads. The second (who is now the new leader) simply hands his belay device to the belayer who puts him on belay underneath the ATC Guide (or whatever device is being used). When the new leader is about to leave the anchor and launch up the next pitch, he simply takes the ATC Guide with him when he goes. Two partners effectively swap belay devices all the way up a route and this saves a lot of unnecessary clipping-into and unclipping-from anchors. I frequently climb multi pitch routes with one ATC Guide and one Gri Gri in this fashion: The leader is always carrying the ATC Guide and belaying up the second with it; the second carries the Gri Gri having just used it to belay the leader. The pattern is repeated all the way up the route; only one person ever clips into any given anchor.

+1

Fast, simple, and efficient.

climber57 wrote:not Whining here, just asking which device is best before me before I go buy one.

For all practical purposes, there is no difference between the two devices. Buy whichever is cheaper or looks prettier to you.

Jack Taylor 1 wrote: In the event of a fall when belaying from the top of a pitch, redirecting through the anchor doubles the amount of force applied to the anchor compared with belaying directly off the anchor in autoblock mode, or directly off the harness. To hold a fall when redirecting, the tension in the belay strand must equal the tension in the climber's strand; i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 2x the force generated by the fall. To hold a fall directly off the anchor in autoblock mode (or directly off the harness, or in a hip belay for that matter) the tension in the climber's strand is the only component of force applied to the anchor, i.e. the force applied to the anchor is 1x the force generated by the fall. Not to mention the fact that you can now use your hands to eat a clif bar, drink some water, reorganize gear, etc. When top roping with the belayer at the bottom of the pitch (e.g. working a single pitch route) the magnification of force generated by redirecting through the anchor is mitigated by the amount of rope available to stretch in the system, making this an acceptable application for redirecting. I can't think of any situation in which I would redirect the belay through the anchor when belaying from the top of a pitch. If concerned about the "time-consuming" process of rigging the device or transitioning to leading, or the "difficulty" of lowering the follower on a taught rope, you should practice these skills more before multi-pitch climbing. If I somehow found myself at the top of a pitch without an autoblocking belay device, I would reconsider my level of preparedness for the climb, curse myself for forgetting such an essential piece of equipment, and proceed to belay directly off the anchor with a munter hitch (or directly off the harness if I had a non-autoblocking belay device).

Hi, I'm not sure all that stacks up. You kind of point to it when you say in a top rope fall the rope offers mitigation. So for the top rope you see it as a dynamic situation, but when considering a redirect as a static one.

In guide mode when the second falls the device is exposed not just to the weight of the second, but because there is often some slack in the system quite a lot more. (I can easily hold someone's weight through a top rope anchor with just my hands, but I can't if they start jumping around.) With a redirect, when the second falls, the belayer is pulled up, softening the catch and spreading the catch over more time, and dumping heat from friction into the redirect. I have not measured it, and I don't know which methods gives the greatest peak force, but I doubt the redirect multiplies it by 2.

As another poster points out, with a true hanging belay, the belayer's weight is already on the powerpoint. In which case I bet the redirect gives a lower peak force. Jim Titt might pop along and tell me I am wrong though!

A redirect can be very useful. It saves switching the plate over for the next pitch. Works well if you don't like using a grigri in gide mode, but, and this is possibly the most common use, it is excellent when the re-direct is the first piece on the next pitch. This really speeds things up especially on multi pitch sport, as the second never even stops at the belay, but just grabs any remaining draws as she races past and up the next pitch.

All the best

D