Kong Duck: quality control issues?

In my endless quest to create a better PAS (maybe I should just be waiting for the CT Tuner to come back in the market?) I stumbled upon this tiny, lightweight ascender/PCD called the Kong Duck. Popular among saddle hunters, I was drawn to it because in part because of its size, weight, orientation, and ridged rather than toothed design. I went ahead and put in an order and eagerly awaited to play with my new toy.

My first impression of the device is that it seems a bit cheaply made, reminiscent of a “Made in China” trinket. It also is picky about what carabiner it will take. Ovals seem to work best, but an HMS might do well, too.

But anyway, I’ll just skip over all the filler to the part mentioned in the title. The way one loads a rope into this little device is by unclipping it from the biner, prying the side plate from the pulley track, and twisting the plate up. Then, simply slip the rope in between the track and the ridges, slide the side plate closed again, and put it back on the biner. Voilá.

Sounds easy/safe enough, right? Except that, after doing this a few dozen times, and realizing that the Duck has a propensity to sit obliquely in an oval biner (the recommended type) — causing intense pressure on whichever side plate the rope slides down against—  you’ll start to slowly see the loading-side side plate bending little by little. I’ll attach pictures of what this looks like below. 

In theory, this shouldn’t really be unsafe, since the carabiner through the connection point will prevent the side plate from slipping open, even if it did bend to the point of no longer being securely set into the connection point. That said, if there’s such little structural integrity that simple light use (lanyard length adjustment done on my bedroom door) is bending the side plate, do we trust the thing to actually stay connected at the hinge point in real life applications? I’m not so sure I would. If it were to break at the hinge point, it could easily result in death. But maybe I’m being too harsh. 

Clove hitches don’t weigh anything and have been proven safe... but that is very concerning looking about the kong duck. I wouldn’t use it either if it looked like that. Seems off to me

Alex Fletcher wrote:

Clove hitches don’t weigh anything and have been proven safe... but that is very concerning looking about the kong duck. I wouldn’t use it either if it looked like that. Seems off to me

Clove hitches are great for security and convenient; I’m a big fan of them and use them often. However, on hanging belay stances an adjustable-while-weighted PAS is really nice. Having an ascender to create this means you’re not carrying a single-purpose item like a petzl connect or linked loop chain. Very easy to repurpose the ascender for aiding up, recovering from free-hanging, etc.

I have no doubt that adjustment while in hanging belay is easier with a device like this. I suppose that when I’m hanging long enough to feel the need to adjust that I’m typically actually aid climbing and would already be using adjustable daisies like the Petzl evolv. I also just don’t think a clove hitch is that difficult to adjust when I must.

Your multipurpose use makes sense. I’m into it. I would choose a micro traxion over a Kong duck. If you’re worried about the teeth, refer to the recent How Not To video and Petzl’s own documentation about being belayed on with a micro traxion. ~5Kn was the magic number.

If you generate 5kn on a tether/PAS something was done wrong. 

Alex Fletcher wrote:

I have no doubt that adjustment while in hanging belay is easier with a device like this. I suppose that when I’m hanging long enough to feel the need to adjust that I’m typically actually aid climbing and would already be using adjustable daisies like the Petzl evolv. I also just don’t think a clove hitch is that difficult to adjust when I must.

Your multipurpose use makes sense. I’m into it. I would choose a micro traxion over a Kong duck. If you’re worried about the teeth, refer to the recent How Not To video and Petzl’s own documentation about being belayed on with a micro traxion. ~5Kn was the magic number.

If you generate 5kn on a tether/PAS something was done wrong. 

So I’ve actually ordered a CAMP Turboblock to try out. A bit bigger than the micro, but it’s orientation for this use is a bit better than the micro and it never had to come off the biner to install the tether

@luke this ascender, as with most ascenders, has instructions in the user manual for its use as a lanyard length adjuster. They are made with this use in mind.

I would not trust a kong-duck as a personal anchor. It feels like there are too many scenarios where it could slip or behave weird. A PAS is not backed up, so it had better perform perfectly.

Why reinvent the wheel when petzl literally sells a purpose made adjustable PAS? It is easy to adjust, probably lighter, and is actually tested to be a PAS.

Only way to improve it would be to use a nothing at all (clove) like the above posters mention.

I’m going to also point out that I don’t use any tether or PAS of any kind when I sport climb. It is not needed, in my experience.

Edit: if I need to clip to the anchor to clean it, quick draws are all that is needed. 

J E wrote:

In my endless quest to create a better PAS (maybe I should just be waiting for the CT Tuner to come back in the market?) I stumbled upon this tiny, lightweight ascender/PCD called the Kong Duck. Popular among saddle hunters, I was drawn to it because in part because of its size, weight, orientation, and ridged rather than toothed design. I went ahead and put in an order and eagerly awaited to play with my new toy.

My first impression of the device is that it seems a bit cheaply made, reminiscent of a “Made in China” trinket. It also is picky about what carabiner it will take. Ovals seem to work best, but an HMS might do well, too.

But anyway, I’ll just skip over all the filler to the part mentioned in the title. The way one loads a rope into this little device is by unclipping it from the biner, prying the side plate from the pulley track, and twisting the plate up. Then, simply slip the rope in between the track and the ridges, slide the side plate closed again, and put it back on the biner. Voilá.

Sounds easy/safe enough, right? Except that, after doing this a few dozen times, and realizing that the Duck has a propensity to sit obliquely in an oval biner (the recommended type) — causing intense pressure on whichever side plate the rope slides down against—  you’ll start to slowly see the loading-side side plate bending little by little. I’ll attach pictures of what this looks like below. 

In theory, this shouldn’t really be unsafe, since the carabiner through the connection point will prevent the side plate from slipping open, even if it did bend to the point of no longer being securely set into the connection point. That said, if there’s such little structural integrity that simple light use (lanyard length adjustment done on my bedroom door) is bending the side plate, do we trust the thing to actually stay connected at the hinge point in real life applications? I’m not so sure I would. If it were to break at the hinge point, it could easily result in death. But maybe I’m being too harsh. 

Kong has been making junk for awhile, caveat emptor.

Luke Lalor wrote:

I would not trust a kong-duck as a personal anchor. It feels like there are too many scenarios where it could slip or behave weird. A PAS is not backed up, so it had better perform perfectly.

Why reinvent the wheel when petzl literally sells a purpose made adjustable PAS? It is easy to adjust, probably lighter, and is actually tested to be a PAS.

Only way to improve it would be to use a nothing at all (clove) like the above posters mention.

I personally don't find the Petzl easy to adjust (shorten, yes, extend, no). and why reinvent the wheel? Well, why do anything? Could the Petzl connect not be improved upon? Everyone was perfectly happy using unassisted tube devices until the ABDs came around. Everyone was happy using tied loops until prussik loops and cords came about. Maybe I make something better, maybe I wasted some time messing around with equipment I wanted or needed anyway.

The Kong Duck is also tested to be a tether legnth adjusting device (see: the user manual) but is clearly a piece of junk. I only made this thread to steer others away from purchasing it. Not sure why it's turned into a thread about why I bought it.

The fact that the flange bent under the low forces of tether-adjusting has me concerned about its durability as an ascender or PCD

I don't think it's quite fair to say that the Duck is "clearly a piece of junk..."  

The Duck was really popular in Chamonix a few years ago--used as a basic and light crevasse rescuve device.  You couldn't find them in the shops.  I have one, and carry it sometimes in the summer for that purpose (mountaineering safety).  I actually find the construction very good, and I like the simplicity and design...KISS (keep it simple stupid).  I use mine with a Petzl oval (if I remember correctly).  I've also used it a bit as a cahe loop tending device for LRS and/or a back/up for TRS.  I find that the teath ice up less than the MT but I also like a Roll n' Lock for the same purpose.  Anyway...I would suggest using it, experimeting with it, getting some experience with it, and figuring out your own guielines regarding the device...before dismissing it.  

Have fun.  

Bruno Schull wrote:

I don't think it's quite fair to say that the Duck is "clearly a piece of junk..."  

The Duck was really popular in Chamonix a few years ago--used as a basic and light crevasse rescuve device.  You couldn't find them in the shops.  I have one, and carry it sometimes in the summer for that purpose (mountaineering safety).  I actually find the construction very good, and I like the simplicity and design...KISS (keep it simple stupid).  I use mine with a Petzl oval (if I remember correctly).  I've also used it a bit as a cahe loop tending device for LRS and/or a back/up for TRS.  I find that the teath ice up less than the MT but I also like a Roll n' Lock for the same purpose.  Anyway...I would suggest using it, experimeting with it, getting some experience with it, and figuring out your own guielines regarding the device...before dismissing it.  

Have fun.  

I would have to say the quality control is spotty, at the very least. I wouldn’t feel comfortable using it the west the flange has bent, the pictures in the OP are from an amazon review, so I’m not the only one it’s happened to. Maybe a bad batch 

Adjustable while weighted on a hanging belay? What kinda routes are you climbing that require this? Sounds like you need a bosuns chair, that or your really over complicating things. Are you using the rope or a seperate piece of rope to create your PAS? Can you post a photo of your setup? 

Set the Kong up and actually use it, I bet you will find it works fine.

Newt Riverman wrote:

Adjustable while weighted on a hanging belay? What kinda routes are you climbing that require this? Sounds like you need a bosuns chair, that or your really over complicating things. Are you using the rope or a seperate piece of rope to create your PAS? Can you post a photo of your setup? 

Set the Kong up and actually use it, I bet you will find it works fine.

There’s a whole product designed for adjustability while tethering: the petzl connect. I just am of the opinion that extending the length while weighted (an advertised feature) is not as easy as it’s made out to be. So I’m playing around with tools I either have in hand or want for other purposes anyway.

Why would you want the adjustability? Comfort; test weighting your rope during rappel; easier To transition between “working” length (eg pulling yourself close into the wall to fiddle with your anchor) and “belaying” length (eg lowering yourself below Anchor height especially for redirected top down belaying, if that’s your thing). I should clarify: this is a quality of life thing, definitely not a necessity

With an ascender, you could use the climbing rope or a personal tether; especially with the camp Turboblock (awesome device , btw) which never has to be removed from the biner to install the rope.

i have used the king. Both for ascending and tether adjusting (both are proper uses according to the manual) which resulted in this Bent plate. I would be especially hesitant to use this with webbing now (another advertised feature of the duck) since the webbing can easily slip into the gap. But who knows, maybe my device and the one from the Amazon review are just duds. Seems like there’s better equipment out there anyway

I’ve been using a DMM Pivot in guide mode more and more in place of a clove on multi pitches for the 2nd (with an overhand catastrophe knot). It can adjust in both directions under load.  

My partner(wife) and I climb with 3 belay devices when weight isn’t a concern, and by using this system, we never transition the 2nd in from a lead belay to a clove. It ends up making the transitions more comfortable and more efficient. 

If one wanted to make a dedicated PAS system with a Pivot, it would just take a small length of rope and 2 carabiners. No funky mechanical stuff and quite light, and it would be safely operating under its intended use.

For what it’s worth, I have the Petzl Connect Adjust and think it’s pretty overrated due to its inability to extend under load. If I’m going to use one, I much prefer the Metolius Dynamic PAS. 

Chris C wrote:

I’ve been using a DMM Pivot in guide mode more and more in place of a clove on multi pitches for the 2nd (with an overhand catastrophe knot). It can adjust in both directions under load.  

My partner(wife) and I climb with 3 belay devices when weight isn’t a concern, and by using this system, we never transition the 2nd in from a lead belay to a clove. It ends up making the transitions more comfortable and more efficient. 

If one wanted to make a dedicated PAS system with a Pivot, it would just take a small length of rope and a carabiner. No funky mechanical stuff and quite light, and it would be safely operating under its intended use.

For what it’s worth, I have the Petzl Connect Adjust and think it’s pretty overrated due to its inability to extend under load. If I’m going to use one, I much prefer the Metolius Dynamic PAS. 

Good thoughts; I usually climb with both a vergo and alpine up. Could probably accomplish the same thing. Camp TB is just a fun piece of technology though

J E wrote:

Good thoughts; I usually climb with both a vergo and alpine up. Could probably accomplish the same thing. Camp TB is just a fun piece of technology though

I think you just like nerding out and collecting climbing gear. It's okay. We all do it. But might you be weighing yourself down with all the extra toys?

Alex Fletcher wrote:

I think you just like nerding out and collecting climbing gear. It's okay. We all do it. But might you be weighing yourself down with all the extra toys?

I’ma self described gear junkie, yes. If a few ounces is making or breaking my climb, though, something very wrong!

Carrying two belay devices is good practice on a multi pitch. The ascender is nice have in case of emergencies, needing to aid, or just quality of life as described in this thread. Besides that, my rack is the standard QuickDraws and slings

J E wrote:

Carrying two belay devices is good practice on a multi pitch.

A münter hitch goes a long way ;-)

John Pitcairn wrote:

A münter hitch goes a long way ;-)

Hah, you're not wrong, but I think I (and my current leaders) am more comfortable with a device!

Never had problems with Kong stuff in my life.