Have a pair of Beal Gully 7.3MM doubles/twins on the way - Need a new belay device

David coley- very good point and def the reason why I'm ordering the micro jul. Just too many unknowns that I'm not comfortable with. I will not be a statistic for improper use of gear. No worries. This thread was more of an inquiry to see if anything other then the micro jul existed. It seems that's the case

Sunny-d. That's great to hear! I'm psyched to tie in with em. I'll let everyone know how they are

Smart thinking , I used to Cary twins for the very same reason . 4 extra lbs in the pack instead of 8-10 On one person .

However after rapping off the petit on twins all I can say is double up on the carabiners or expect some hot hands and a smoking hot device . I used my ATC guide and had no real issues other then mentioned . I whish I would have brought my Petzl reversino though or even my reverso as has been stated the petzls seem to work better .

I'm not really a fan of beal ropes ,however I bought a beal 8.1 X60m golden dry rope back in 2007 and the damn thing has the best waterproofing I've ever seen , I have used that rope every season since new and it refuses to soak up any moisture what so ever no matter how wet things get . It hasent even fuzzed up and still looks new . We only use it for rapping off ice climbs so it's had a good workout sometimes laying on the wet ice for hours . Would like to hear how the new skinny Beal ropes hold up .

I wish I woud have bought two but I wasn't even in the market for another rope when I bought it , I just couldn't resist the 70 dollar close out price tag .

Smallest rope I've used was ice floss 7.7 and still had no problems with the ATC guide .i really don't know if I'd feel comfortable with less yet I hear they use 5mm accessory cord for fixed ropes so there ya go.

And by the way yer not gona die but your going to have to get used to all that rope stretch when ya weight em .

Backcountrygear.com has micro juls in stock. I have them for my sterling photon 7.8's. it is an awesome device, just be sure to get the Edelrid belay biner, it's kind of specifically designed to work with the micro jul.

So I did some calling around and Ragged mtn in New Hampshire helped me out a bit. They went through their devices. And I was surprised when he told me the atc guide is rated from 7-11MM as half and double ropes?!

Sure enough I looked up the instructions that come with the ATC guide and found this:

atc guide ropes

I am going to call black diamond directly in a moment to confirm this, as the description on their website says 7.5 and up. But this contradicts that.Stay tuned.

OK folks - This is the "official" word as per Black Diamond. Straight from the MFG.

The rating put in the general description is there for those who dont have a full understanding of what single, twin, and half ropes are. The general spec is that it is intended for use on ropes from 7.7mm up to 11mm ropes.

However - On the PDF instruction manual as shown above, it says that it is intended for use on singles from 9mm-11mm, on twins from 7mm-11mm, and on half ropes (or doubles) from 7mm-11m. This is the official "legal" word on the intended and tested use of the device. Obviously special considerations MUST be made when using sub 8MM ropes. They are super thin and there WILL be less friction in the system when catching a fall, lowering a climber, rappelling, etc.

So - The legal answer straight from the horses mouth - Using it as intended and described in the manual, "you'll be fine to go ahead and use your 7.3mm rope with your atc guide".

Obviously - dont take this to mean things cannot go wrong. Take precautions and get used to how the ropes react with thin ropes before going balls to the wall. Happy climbing.

BD DISCLAIMER: Smaller diameter ropes and new dry treated ropes feed through belay/rappel devices faster and can be more difficult to control when belaying and rappelling.

cms829 wrote: However - On the PDF instruction manual as shown above, it says that it is intended for use on singles from 9mm-11mm, on twins from 7mm-11mm, and on half ropes (or doubles) from 7mm-11m.

Out of interest does anyone know what testing regime belay device manufacturers use? Is is a UIAA-type fall, and how long is the fall.

i.e. in the above are they saying it will hold a FF=0.5 3m fall without melting your skin, or a FF=1.5, 25m fall?

And do they assume gloves are used?

Thanks

Thats a good point. Maybe tomorrow I'll call BD back and ask what type of testing they do to come to the conclusion that XX-XXmm ropes are suitable.

Unless someone here knows off hand?

David Coley wrote: Out of interest does anyone know what testing regime belay device manufacturers use? Is is a UIAA-type fall, and how long is the fall. i.e. in the above are they saying it will hold a FF=0.5 3m fall without melting your skin, or a FF=1.5, 25m fall? And do they assume gloves are used? Thanks

Be interesting to see what numbers they come up with:-)

Im gonna pick BD's brain this afternoon and will update this later

Fyi - Got the ropes (and theyre amazing). Climbed Sat and Sun on them. Used my Black Diamond ATC Guide and a trango b-52 device. Both worked just fine including on rap. However I didnt try guide mode yet, and obviously didnt take any lead falls.

I'll get around to calling BD at some point but for now Im going to continue using my atc guide. Will test it in guide mode on the ground first.

Reversino might be worth trying. sierratradingpost.com/petzl… $24 and might go lower with a good promo code.

David Coley wrote: Out of interest does anyone know what testing regime belay device manufacturers use? Is is a UIAA-type fall, and how long is the fall. i.e. in the above are they saying it will hold a FF=0.5 3m fall without melting your skin, or a FF=1.5, 25m fall? And do they assume gloves are used?

Jim Titt wrote:Be interesting to see what numbers they come up with:-)

Sure would. I think a lot of devices are oriented to the single-pitch sport-climbing market. Personally, I have very little faith in the minimum diameter ratings as suitable for catching the kinds serious falls that can potentially occur in the multipitch context.

This is especially true for half-ropes. Given that the fall may well have to be caught on a single strand, how can you possibly proclaim a smaller allowable diameter for half ropes than for single ropes? Does this make even a little sense?

rgold wrote: Sure would. I think a lot of devices are oriented to the single-pitch sport-climbing market. Personally, I have very little faith in the minimum diameter ratings as suitable for catching the kinds serious falls that can potentially occur in the multipitch context. This is especially true for half-ropes. Given that the fall may well have to be caught on a single strand, how can you possibly proclaim a smaller allowable diameter for half ropes than for single ropes? Does this make even a little sense?

Perhaps the 9-11mm range for single ropes isn't as much a limitation on the device, but a typical size for single ropes...? I could see how it might also be confusing if they listed the single rope range as 7-11mm.

This might be just the job:
youtube.com/watch?v=EKJ4Jxm…

rgold wrote: Sure would. I think a lot of devices are oriented to the single-pitch sport-climbing market. Personally, I have very little faith in the minimum diameter ratings as suitable for catching the kinds serious falls that can potentially occur in the multipitch context. This is especially true for half-ropes. Given that the fall may well have to be caught on a single strand, how can you possibly proclaim a smaller allowable diameter for half ropes than for single ropes? Does this make even a little sense?

Especially since you lose ca25% of the braking power if only one strand of a pair is loaded compared with just using a single strand.

rgold wrote: Sure would. I think a lot of devices are oriented to the single-pitch sport-climbing market. Personally, I have very little faith in the minimum diameter ratings as suitable for catching the kinds serious falls that can potentially occur in the multipitch context. This is especially true for half-ropes. Given that the fall may well have to be caught on a single strand, how can you possibly proclaim a smaller allowable diameter for half ropes than for single ropes? Does this make even a little sense?

I would clip halves as twins out of the belay. The truth is that the maximum impact force of halves clipped as twins would never exceed the UIAA's 12kN maximum because no belay device is capable of arresting that type of load. The rope would slip and the belayer would melt his skin off well before the climber was pushing 12kN on his side. Even with well-worn 9mm halves clipped as twins, I doubt the belayer could stop more than ~4kN on his side, and only for an extremely brief period.

Thus, the advantage of additional friction from using halves as twins right out of the belay is outweighs the risk of the increased impact force IMO.

You can still have high fall-factor falls on a single strand even if you clip both strands at the belay, so if there is a problem, clipping both strands at the belay won't fix it.

I still can't see how having a smaller allowable half rope size than single rope size makes any sense at all.

rgold wrote:You can still have high fall-factor falls on a single strand even if you clip both strands at the belay, so if there is a problem, clipping both strands at the belay won't fix it.

My point was that it would be easier to control a fall on two skinny ropes than one. The belayer has more friction with both.

20 kN wrote: My point was that it would be easier to control a fall on two skinny ropes than one. The belayer has more friction with both.

Sure, falling onto the first piece. After that it´s back to square one if the ropes are being used as double ropes. Like Rich says it´s a bit illogical and the numbers the manufacturers give seem more to do with the common rope sizes available than any notion of stopping ability.

20kN wrote:My point was that it would be easier to control a fall on two skinny ropes than one. The belayer has more friction with both.

...and my point is that in half-rope technique, once the leader has advanced up the pitch, only one of those ropes is going to be running, whether or not you clip them both to the anchor, so not only do you not benefit from the higher friction of both ropes (that would be the case for twin ropes), but---according to Jim---you suffer an additional grip penalty from having two ropes in your hand, only one of which is loaded.

The fact is that a typical half-rope catch is a single rope belay with a rope that may be of considerably smaller diameter than the device claims to handle. Something ain't right with the manufacturer's specifications and you really do have to wonder what the hell they are thinking when they actually stamp that kind of nonsense on their gadgets.

Actually, I think I know what they are thinking. They are only certifying their device for half ropes if the half ropes are used as twin ropes. This leaves a real gap, not simply in what seems to me to be generally over-optimisic estimates of minimum diameters, but in actual rated usage.