Edelrid MegaJul Belay Device

Jim Titt wrote: Well it CAN be used in the non-not-very-autolocking mode though the manufacturers don´t state this.

If you flip the megajul around for lead-belay, the belay device will constantly lock up on when you are trying to feed out rope. This method is anything but practical, which is why Edelrid doesn´t advice to use it like that. Try it, you will realize it doesn´t in practice.

While I appreciate the discussion and have found it to be very interesting, I have nothing but praise for this device. I am happy with how its performed for me in many settings. I have used it extensively sport climbing in Greece and Turkey for over a month catching many falls and easily lowering on a 9.5 Edelweiss Energy. It always locked and performed as advertised. As I got better using it, it became even easier to use. I've used it with a 9.3 and a 9.8 Mammut rope on trad climbing routes extensively as well. Its always worked very well and has consistently caught falls. It has worked very well climbing alpine multipitch and long multipitch in Red Rock with a set of 8.2 Mammut Double Ropes. It caught a long fall on a single strand of those doubles with no issue. I have rappelled with it "backwards" on many pitches using a backup and it has performed flawlessly. I have used it in guide mode on Multipitch climbs on many occasions with all the ropes listed and it has always worked no problem. I know several other folks that I've run into in the field, who have made similar comments. I have also run into a few folks that have commented that they didn't like it early into their adoption of the Jul and went back to an ATC or other device.

That said, I'm not hearing from many people other than "I know a guy who knows a guy" type stories of the device performing other than advertised. I find Weston's question appropriate. Does it hold falls and is it easy to use? In my and many others experience it does and it is. although there can be a learning curve. I've heard no direct reports from someone saying it didn't hold a fall.

Jim Titt wrote: You think rgold and I are armchair engineers? I´ll admit I´m an engineer, after all I manufacture and design climbing equipment but armchair surely not, we´ve combined got over 100 years climbing experience and I´m not ready to sit down yet!

I'm LMAO at the prior arm chair engineer comment.
Don't you folks know who Jim Titt is?
oh, you don't? Then spend some time figurring it out.
(sheeit Jim, I thought you had over 100 years experience by yourself...)

Most of you are giving personal opinion based on usage.
Ok, that's fine, for what it is, but's it is nothing but one off subjective opinion. "I used it and ..." Nothing wrong with that, as far is it goes.
And that's the problem it goes almost nowhere in terms of testing.

Jim is coming at this from a lifetime of climbing engineering.
Not arm chair engineering either but actual lab and design work.
bolt-products.com

thanks for the good laugh boys

Patrick Mulligan wrote:While I appreciate the discussion and have found it to be very interesting, I have nothing but praise for this device. I am happy with how its performed for me in many settings. I have used it extensively sport climbing in Greece and Turkey for over a month catching many falls and easily lowering on a 9.5 Edelweiss Energy. It always locked and performed as advertised. As I got better using it, it became even easier to use. I've used it with a 9.3 and a 9.8 Mammut rope on trad climbing routes extensively as well. Its always worked very well and has consistently caught falls. It has worked very well climbing alpine multipitch and long multipitch in Red Rock with a set of 8.2 Mammut Double Ropes. It caught a long fall on a single strand of those doubles with no issue. I have rappelled with it "backwards" on many pitches using a backup and it has performed flawlessly. I have used it in guide mode on Multipitch climbs on many occasions with all the ropes listed and it has always worked no problem. I know several other folks that I've run into in the field, who have made similar comments. I have also run into a few folks that have commented that they didn't like it early into their adoption of the Jul and went back to an ATC or other device. That said, I'm not hearing from many people other than "I know a guy who knows a guy" type stories of the device performing other than advertised. I find Weston's question appropriate. Does it hold falls and is it easy to use? In my and many others experience it does and it is. although there can be a learning curve. I've heard no direct reports from someone saying it didn't hold a fall.

That´s what the data says as well, with normal ropes and in normal use the MegaJul performs well and often better than the conventional plates. At high forces or with lower-limit ropes it´s braking performance is inferior to more conventional plates, contrary to common opinion the enhanced braking over a conventional plate is not continued through the entire operating range of the device.
Whether one wishes to be protected against concequences of a large fall is the users choice.

Jim Titt wrote: That´s what the data says as well, with normal ropes and in normal use the MegaJul performs well and often better than the conventional plates. At high forces or with lower-limit ropes it´s braking performance is inferior to more conventional plates, contrary to common opinion the enhanced braking over a conventional plate is not continued through the entire operating range of the device. Whether one wishes to be protected against concequences of a large fall is the users choice.

Thanks for the concise synopsis without charts and graphs. My contention is that 90 percent of climbers aren't going to hold a factor 2 fall with an ATC either, especially without gloves, which most people don't wear. So the angle of breaking, or slight edge in holding power, is an academic exercise and doesn't matter in reality.

Jim Titt wrote: The 7.8 results are particularly poor

Might it be worth measuring the difference using two screwgates makes?

Brian wrote:Even it it doesn't hold a factor 2 fall without belayer intervention it certainly is going to slow down the falling climbing a lot more than a conventional device and make it easier to gain control of the rope.

Brian wrote:Don't listen to the armchair engineers who have never personally used the device.

Brian wrote:This is exactly the theoretical mathematical bullshit I'm talking about.

Brian wrote: My bet is that a MegaJul will hold better because of its "assisted locking" than an ATC especially if the belayer does not have gloves on.

Brian wrote: A BD ATC is easier to hold a factor 2 fall? Unless we are talking about different things, I find that to be incredible. I probably can't convince any of my climbing partners to take a factor 2 fall for me to test it so I will have to continue to disbelieve it until I see verifiable published tests.

Brian wrote: I totally agree with this. I can't test it but it is just logical that the assisted locking, however minimum, would be better than the rope running through an ATC. Or at least it would run more slowly through the assisted locking device allowing the belayer to retain control of it more easily than it screaming through an ATC.

Brian wrote: What I refer to is if the rope should get out of the control of the belayer in a factor 2 then it would go screaming through the ATC where as (I believe) it would be at least somewhat slowed down by the rope pinching effect using a MegaJul.

Just thought I would pull out a few key quotes from our friend Brian. As far as I can tell, nothing is lost from removing context. Putting them here in case someone decides to edit their posts.

If you're just tuning in, these are some of the (rather strong) statements made by Brian, each of which were fairly thoroughly and patiently refuted by ("armchair engineers") rgold and Jim Titt.

Brian wrote: Thanks for the concise synopsis without charts and graphs. My contention is that 90 percent of climbers aren't going to hold a factor 2 fall with an ATC either, especially without gloves, which most people don't wear. So the angle of breaking, or slight edge in holding power, is an academic exercise and doesn't matter in reality.

In your version of reality maybe it´s not important:-)

David Coley wrote: Might it be worth measuring the difference using two screwgates makes?

With the MegaJul the self locking is removed but if you lock it up by hand the resistance is the same as a single karabiner. With the Smart it moves into the locked position on it´s own but has virtually no self-generated resistance whatsoever.

Jim Titt wrote: There I will agree with you:-) If you take the gigantic enormous whipper and your belayer lets go of the rope because he´s got rope burns then you are going to plummet downwards slower with a MegaJul than with an ATC since the locking part still works. Depending on the rope you are using you´ll either slow down a bit or speed up a bit. The alternatives are of course don´t fall off (the one I choose), climb with a belayer with enormous hand strength or wear gloves. A big furry, non treated rope is probably the biggest single factor apart from not falling off in the first place.

This is where we agree and why I would use an assisted locking device versus a tuber style device. Until an actual test is performed with factor 2 falls it is all speculation anyway. As an engineer, I'm sure you would agree with that. I would love to see a test to determine how many people can actually hold a factor 2 fall with any tuber style device.

As for the criticism (of others) that you don't argue with the expert. That is an old trick in debating that when you have no argument on the subject that you attack the qualifications of the debater.

Brian wrote: My contention is that 90 percent of climbers aren't going to hold a factor 2 fall with an ATC either, especially without gloves, which most people don't wear. So the angle of breaking, or slight edge in holding power, is an academic exercise and doesn't matter in reality.

For a touch of counterpoint, here's my view: I can stop 99% of all climbing falls with any device; I don't need a MegaJul or Smart or Alpine Up for the vast majority of my climbing. If anyone had any doubts, I'd say those pesky graphs and angle measurements make it pretty clear that the ATC XP is a superb combination of handling (that part not from the charts) and hand-force enhancement.

The reason I switched over to the Alpine Up is that, unlike Brian, I care about that bad 1%. Part of the reason may be that I've actually had to deal with those situations more than once, so they aren't some distant hypothetical supposition shimmering just over the horizon that I think is never going to happen to me. Part of it is philosophical; I just can't throw up my hands and accept that, as a belayer, there are certain types of severe falls I just give up on holding, especially when the potential for such falls is ever-present, even if the reality is extremely rare.

The point of all of this is that, unlike Brian, the behavior of my belay device in extreme conditions, conditions I might never encounter again, is the primary reason I choose device, rather than some irrelevant consideration to be dismissed in favor of even excellent performance in cases when everything performs well. And that being my outlook, Jim's results are of great importance to my decisions about climbing gear.

Brian wrote:As for the criticism (of others) that you don't argue with the expert. That is an old trick in debating that when you have no argument on the subject that you attack the qualifications of the debater.

For example, calling people whose qualifications you know nothing about armchair engineers.

folks ...

first of all Jim's tests who that generally the alpine smart is generally no worse than the reverso3 and in certain situations better ...

no one is going to stop using their reversos because of these tests, nor should they

here jims tests again

Hand Force/belay Force 9mm rope.

7.8mm

8.5mm

the other thing is that we, on da intrawebz, really dont know how the devices AND belayers behave in real world large falls ... sure we know from Jim's test they slip at a certain point ....

however they dont have an "inertial" phase where the hand moves up towards the device when braking .... in the case of the smart the hand should move DOWN onto the rope fully

how much of the impact force is absorbed by the initial braking is unknown ... youll notice that with a hand belay method (munter, ATC) the maximum force occurs at the when the hand actually starts grabbing the rope ...

with the smart the rope is grabbed to a certain extent from the get go ...

A Simulation of Climbing and Rescue Belays

until some body comes out and tests it with belayers in the system for high factor falls and publishes the results we wont really know

Jims tests are valuable in that they reinforce the point that NONE of these devices are hands free and should not be treated a such... even if they do lock in certain circumstances

but the smart anyways will do its job if you do yours ... it just isnt a "hands free" device ... no commercial climbing device is

hands free on a smart with 10mm tendon smart rope ... not recommended without backup

what one should worry about is not so much the devices themselves ... but the belayers and the folks who promote them as substitute for basic belaying skills and proper brake control (with gri gris as well)

;)

rgold wrote: For a touch of counterpoint, here's my view: I can stop 99% of all climbing falls with any device; I don't need a MegaJul or Smart or Alpine Up for the vast majority of my climbing. If anyone had any doubts, I'd say those pesky graphs and angle measurements make it pretty clear that the ATC XP is a superb combination of handling (that part not from the charts) and hand-force enhancement. The reason I switched over to the Alpine Up is that, unlike Brian, I care about that bad 1%. Part of the reason may be that I've actually had to deal with those situations more than once, so they aren't some distant hypothetical supposition shimmering just over the horizon that I think is never going to happen to me. Part of it is philosophical; I just can't throw up my hands and accept that, as a belayer, there are certain types of severe falls I just give up on holding, especially when the potential for such falls is ever-present, even if the reality is extremely rare. The point of all of this is that, unlike Brian, the behavior of my belay device in extreme conditions, conditions I might never encounter again, is the primary reason I choose device, rather than some irrelevant consideration to be dismissed in favor of even excellent performance in cases when everything performs well. And that being my outlook, Jim's results are of great importance to my decisions about climbing gear. For example, calling people whose qualifications you know nothing about armchair engineers.

I agree that I can also stop 99% of all climbing falls with any device. I climb with a lot of inexperienced climbers who I don't have totally confidence can hold me in a fall. So I like them using an assisted braking device. I have found the MegaJul the best option for this. I personally use an ATC Guide when lead trad climbing and bring up my seconds. I do care about "the behavior of my belay device in extreme conditions" but if I go with the odds that the kind of fall my second will experience will not be a factor 2. If I have my inexperienced belayer use an tuber style device because it is more likely to catch me in an extreme case factor 2 then I'm playing the long shot and betting they can hold me on the more likely regular old whipper.
As far as armchair engineers I was referring to people who are commenting on the MegaJul who do not own one or never used one, which is the majority of posters on this thread. If I referred to anyone as an armchair engineer that who does own and use one then my apologies.

Jim,

Thanks for the great tests and data. Is there a way to superimpose fall forces onto your graphs so we can get a better ideal of how these results correlate to the real world? I realize fall forces vary greatly with the factors involved including climber weight, belayer weight, fall factors and much more. But, perhaps using an 80 kg climber and an anchored belayer with varying fall factors for a simplified view.

From your graphs, it appears most devices, with most ropes are more than adequate (simplified conclusion) with single pitch and "Unanchored" belayers since the belay holding force only needs to be greater than the belayers weight since the belayer will be airborne if the force required to arrest the fall exceeds their body weight, whether this is desirable or not.

So, this discussion really pertains to a multi pitch scenario where high fall factors or an "anchored" belay exists. Furthermore, factor 2 is not really relevant since the rope slips in all of these devices making the factor 2 impossible. For example, a leader 5 feet above the belay falls 10 feet on 5 feet of rope: 10/5= ff 2. But, only 1 foot of rope slippage through the device yields: 11/6= ff 1.8 . Although 1.8 is still very high and should be avoided at all costs, the mythical ff 2 does not really exist with devices the have "slippage".

Greg, once the rope slips through the belay device under tension, the entire fall-factor construction is no longer appropriate for discussing peak loads and it is of no theoretical, much less practical use. You can think of the fall factor as being related to what the peak load would be without such slippage, but that's as far as it goes. (The fall factor is still relevant if you just put a certain amount of slack in the rope, however.) Because of the relationship between fall factor and peak loads, we do know that the likelihood of rope slippage goes up as the fall factor goes up.

In most discussions, "fall factor 2" is a shorthand for a fall the belayer has to hold without the rope running through any intermediate protection. As far as peak loads are concerned, there is hardly any difference between fall factor 2 and, say, fall factor 1.8 anyway.

rgold, thanks for that reply and I understand. Ignoring my comments about fall factors, I still would like to see fall forces laid over these graphs to put it in perspective.

For example, a 100 kg belay force can only resist a 100 kg fall is there is zero friction between belayer and climber. But, as soon as you introduce points of protection between belayer and cimber and friction on biners and over the rock, a 100 kg belay force can arrest a higher fall force.

Brian wrote: As far as armchair engineers I was referring to people who are commenting on the MegaJul who do not own one or never used one, which is the majority of posters on this thread. If I referred to anyone as an armchair engineer that who does own and use one then my apologies.

[Emphasis is mine.]

Brian, your willingness to just make stuff up is impressive. EVERYONE (I count 19 posters) who commented on the MegaJul, with the SINGLE EXCEPTION of me, indicate that they own and use the MegaJul (and, by the way, are almost entirely positive about the experience). The vast mob of ignorant armchair engineer posters is something you just invented and are now apologizing to.

As far as my post, I've already explained myself and won't add anything to what I've already said very clearly. Since I am not an engineer, you are welcome to call me an "armchair engineer" without apology if that tickles your fancy.

Greg, Jim's graphs have pretty much every device slipping once the load to the belayer exceeds about 2.5 kN, a level around 1/3 of the maximum possible load one might conceivably get, and in some cases a lot less. The take-away is that the tested "assisted locking" devices are not going to "lock" for extreme falls and, moreover, might provide less stopping friction than the good old ATC XP. I haven't tossed my assisted locker (one that Jim hasn't tested) yet, but I have gone back to using it with gloves, as I would with an ATC.

Greg D wrote:Jim, Thanks for the great tests and data. Is there a way to superimpose fall forces onto your graphs so we can get a better ideal of how these results correlate to the real world? I realize fall forces vary greatly with the factors involved including climber weight, belayer weight, fall factors and much more. But, perhaps using an 80 kg climber and an anchored belayer with varying fall factors for a simplified view. From your graphs, it appears most devices, with most ropes are more than adequate (simplified conclusion) with single pitch and "Unanchored" belayers since the belay holding force only needs to be greater than the belayers weight since the belayer will be airborne if the force required to arrest the fall exceeds their body weight, whether this is desirable or not. So, this discussion really pertains to a multi pitch scenario where high fall factors or an "anchored" belay exists. Furthermore, factor 2 is not really relevant since the rope slips in all of these devices making the factor 2 impossible. For example, a leader 5 feet above the belay falls 10 feet on 5 feet of rope: 10/5= ff 2. But, only 1 foot of rope slippage through the device yields: 11/6= ff 1.8 . Although 1.8 is still very high and should be avoided at all costs, the mythical ff 2 does not really exist with devices the have "slippage".

Like rgold says, fundamentally we ignore fall factors except for the bearing they have on the initial force applied, once the force is higher than the balayer and device can hold the rope slips and above a certain limit the belayer will start to suffer from rope burns. The standard values for "too much" are either 1800J or about 1-1.5m slip. In your example the faller already had his FF2 and then the rope slipped. A foot is o.k, 3 feet is extremely uncomfortable or worse.
One difficulty with this kind of discussion is the "real world" devotees who have one concept of a big fall and those of us who have to look at the worst case since that is the system we build equipment to. A "big" fall to us is getting around 15 to 30m (and what the CAI test to) and the maximum we have to worry about is twice the length of a climbing rope and yes, there are people who have taken the over 50m ride and lived to tell the tale. We can´t realistically design a safety system which works for some parts but not others so we don´t and so the expectation must be that a belay device stops any conceivable fall. I´ve been 35m down on the rope and expect any device I buy or use can cope with this if it ever happens again. If it can´t then the makers should say so, same as they have to tell you that micro-nut only holds 2kN.

I might add, as I think I mentioned earlier, that the 1-1.5 m of slip, if that's what you can keep it to, is going to go through yer hand in a bit more than 1/4 of second, in other words, it is going to happen fast.

just a thought ... has anyone asked mammut and edelrid for comment?

if no one else is willing, ill email mammut over the weekend

;)