Do you belay w/ gloves? Should I?

I'm in my first month of lead climbing at the Gunks. It's awesome! Anyway, I have some gloves I've been planning on using for belaying (those lead falls look scary, and I'd prefer to keep my hands burn free and my leader alive). My partner, who last seriously climbed 20 years ago, thought this was silly and looked at me so pityingly that I haven't tried using the gloves.  

Question: are gloves important/good to use? If so, when? Just for lead belaying?

Oh, and if I do use them I plan on taking them off before I start climbing.

Thanks,
A

I use gloves. They keep my hands clean and give me more control. They are especially nice for doing multiple rapps.

If you are belaying correctly, the device takes the friction and heat. However, as C. said, they can be nice on rappel. I started using gloves about a year ago, more for sport climbing, where you are more commonly lowering your partner. It keeps your hands somewhat clean and reduces the stress on your skin. I'm old though. I don't really give a shit about eye rolling.
They are definitely another thing. Eventually you'll figure out for yourself whether or not it's worth the hassle.

Clean hands are not as important as checking the rope as it runs across the sensory receptors of your bare hands.

I do not wear gloves.  Many people do, most of the people I climb with do not.  I'm sure there are some strong opinions toward them.  I do not know anyone who has burned their hands from a lead belay catch without gloves.  Some people feel a need to buy everything that manufacturers can slap a logo on, and I assume that comes into it to some degree.  Not judging, I'm a bit of a gear junkie myself, just don't like wearing gloves.  I prefer to feel the rope.

You don't need to gloves to give a good, safe belay.

They're nice if your partner is working a route and falling/hanging/boinking a lot. They're nice when lowering. They're nice if you have soft little baby skin and are trying to save it for the actual climbing. I wear gloves most of the time when belaying sport climbs for these reasons. If I'm trad climbing and it's cold, I might wear them for warmth too.

As for the "sensory receptors" comment, I recommend only lowering with the rope running across your taint, since there are more sensory receptors there.

Abram Herman wrote: 
As for the "sensory receptors" comment, I recommend only lowering with the rope running across your taint, since there are more sensory receptors there.

Ouch! Actually, that sounds kinda nice.

I'm an old guy, too. So my hands are already a bit glove-like.

I think I'll give them a try, mostly to mess with my partner. I'm planning to belay her w/ a munter for the same reason. :)

I think I'll give them a try, mostly to mess with my partner. I'm planning to belay her w/ a munter for the same reason. :)

Well if it's to mess with your partner, I highly recommend the gloves.  The munter though...have fun fixing your rope...

Statistics say gloves are a good idea.

http://www.rmrg.net/publications/2012_RMRG_Boulder_Eldo_Rock_Climb_Accidents.pdf

I posted the following comments on Supertopo seven years ago, so some of the references to belay devices are quite out of date.  The basic argument is the same and has been the same almost since my first days of climbing 62 years ago.  I did a little editing to keep certain other things up to date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If  you haven't gotten burns, it is most likely because you haven't had to catch a really severe fall, which in fact extremely few people ever have to do. Yeah, I know all about climbing N years and never getting burned.  I'll see most people their N and raise them a few.  But all it means that none of the falls caught transmitted much more than about 1200 lbf  (5.3 kN) to the belay, because most climbers grip strength does not exceed 120 lbf and most belay devices don't multiply this by more than about 10.  (Note: both numbers can be considerably less---your device might multiply by 5 or even less, depending on rope characteristics and diameter, and there is probably a wide range of grip strengths among climbers.)

If and when (and I hope it never happens) you get an impact above 1200 lbf, there will be rope slippage through the belay.  This has been tested and demonstrated over and over again by the European alpine clubs.

In addition to friction in the system that prevents high loads from reaching the belayer, there are other variables, such as rope diameter and belay device type.  In tests done by Mal Daly a few years ago, a Metolius BRD (probably the highest-friction device out there) required a touch under ten lbf to hold a 160 pound load on 9.8mm rope, while an old-style Reverso (one of the least adequate devices ever made) needed about 45 lbf to hold the same load.  Obviously, the Reverso guy, whose device multiplies his grip strength by about 3, is going to have rope burns long before the BRD gal, whose device multiplies her grip strength by about sixteen.

Update: assisted braking devices don't have an associated force multiplier.  Of course for low-impact falls no braking force from the belayer is required, but after a certain threshold, the belayer has to brake, and the force multiplication curve levels out considerably faster than that for an ATC-XP.  This means that the assisted braking device will ultimately require more grip strength than the ATC-XP.  and the grip strength requirements will exceed human capability sooner with the assisted braking device than with an ATC-XP.

And grip strength itself is a variable.  It is quite variable in the general population; presumably climbers are, at least after years of climbing, at the upper end.  But that doesn't mean there aren't substantial differences.  Light people can perform on climbs at the same level as much heavier people even though the lightweights have much lower grip strength.  But the lower grip strength will show up in the belay context, which is absolute rather than relative.

I have caught a factor-2 fall, but it was with a hip belay and an 11mm rope, a combination that might have provided more friction than we currently get with most belay devices, which are designed and purchased more because of their rope-handling characteristics than their force-multiplying factors.  (For example, how many of you own a Metolius BRD...I rest my case.)  

Because I learned to climb in the Pleistocene era, I have caught scores of falls in the UIAA test range with the rope running through a single biner and no other sources of friction. Of course, a weight was used for these belay tests, making them more severe than a corresponding human-body event for the same weight.  Still, anyone who has had this experience would never assert that all falls can be stopped without rope slippage, or promote the fallacy that rope slippage represents, de facto, some kind of failure on the belayer's part.

One of the jokes about attitudes towards belay-device friction is that people seem to grasp the fact that if they do a single-strand rappel on a 9.8 mm rope, they had better double the biners to create more friction.  That would be more friction for holding body weight.  What reasoning process admits this fact and then pretends that the same device with only a single biner is going to hold ten times body weight with no slippage?  

My experience from back in the day and my understanding of modern-day equipment---which simply cannot stop severe falls without slippage and indeed includes that fact as part of its advantages---persuades me to use belay gloves.  (Feel free to call me all the inappropriate names you wish.)  I know the probability of needing their protection is extremely low, and that many climbers have full careers without ever getting burned.  But I dislike the idea of being unprepared for possible adverse scenarios that occur on most trad climbs, scenarios that would result in in rope running.  Burns are bad enough and may be far more than a minor first-aid event, but the potential for losing control of the belay is even worse.

I've climbed for the same N years (N=62 in my case) without ever getting hit by a rock.  If I used that as an argument for not wearing a hard hat, I'd be jumped on.  Belay gloves are in exactly the same category as hard hats, and yet people are comfortable offering the same type of argument for not using them. Sure, you'll probably never need them, but if you do and don't have them, the consequences may be severe indeed (e.g. 1 month for new skin to form and one year for hand to fully heal).

Well done, Rich!

I was hoping you would post on this topic.

Yea, if you are belaying **anything** where the possibility of a severe event is present you are way better off with gloves. ALL belay devices slip under severe loads and the basic tubers have real risk of the belayer losing control without gloves.

Sport, no. Trad, yes.  Back when we used ATC's regularly for sport belaying, we'd often use gloves (especially on multi-day trips) just to keep as much skin on our hands as possible.  Now, with auto-blocking devices, we usually only bust them out when it's sub 50 degrees.  That being said, my partner climbed the first six pitches of Crimson Chrysalis without taking his gloves off.

I burnt my hands fairly severely in the 70s, when I caught an ~ 60-foot fall using a Sticht belay device on a first ascent in the BUgaboos ( alpinist.com/doc/web17w/wfe…).

Even using an ATC, I find that when I'm lowering climbers, there's a fair amount of friction, so I prefer to lower climbers using fingerless belay gloves - which kinda means I have to belay with the also.

with a Gri Gri, lowering and friction may be less of an issue, but if I'm doing a 10-pitch climb, I generally don't  want to carry a GriGri.

Agree completely with the yes to gloves comments. Much more likely to hold a fall with gloves than with bare hands. I especially advise smaller belayers (often women) to use gloves to give a safer belay to their heavier partners or just to better protect their hands. I was taught to big wall with thin (racquetball then--probably mechanix or biking now) gloves to protect tips and cuticles and still allow some dexterity while handling gear and rope. As for the "sensory receptors" comment; I recommend the dulfersitz (look it up) method for rappelling :)

Andrew Hess wrote:

Ouch! Actually, that sounds kinda nice.

I'm an old guy, too. So my hands are already a bit glove-like.

I think I'll give them a try, mostly to mess with my partner. I'm planning to belay her w/ a munter for the same reason. :)

Try a clove hitch.  That will really mess with her.  

rgold wrote: I posted the following comments on Supertopo seven years ago, so some of the references to belay devices are quite out of date.  The basic argument is the same and has been the same almost since my first days of climbing 62 years ago.  I did a little editing to keep certain other things up to date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If  you haven't gotten burns, it is most likely because you haven't had to catch a really severe fall, which in fact extremely few people ever have to do. Yeah, I know all about climbing N years and never getting burned.  I'll see most people their N and raise them a few.  But all it means that none of the falls caught transmitted much more than about 1200 lbf  (5.3 kN) to the belay, because most climbers grip strength does not exceed 120 lbf and most belay devices don't multiply this by more than about 10.  (Note: both numbers can be considerably less.)

If and when (and I hope it never happens) you get an impact above 1200 lbf, there will be rope slippage through the belay.  This has been tested and demonstrated over and over again by the European alpine clubs.

In addition to friction in the system that prevents high loads from reaching the belayer, there are other variables, such as rope diameter and belay device type.  In tests done by Mal Daly a few years ago, a Metolius BRD (probably the highest-friction device out there) required a touch under ten lbf to hold a 160 pound load on 9.8mm rope, while an old-style Reverso (one of the least adequate devices ever made) needed about 45 lbf to hold the same load.  Obviously, the Reverso guy, whose device multiplies his grip strength by about 3, is going to have rope burns long before the BRD gal, whose device multiplies her grip strength by about sixteen.

Update: assisted braking devices don't have an associated force multiplier.  Of course for low-impact falls no braking force from the belayer is required, but after a certain threshold, the belayer has to brake, and the force multiplication curve levels out considerably faster than that for an ATC-XP.  This means that the assisted braking device will ultimately require more grip strength than the ATC-XP.  and the grip strength requirements will exceed human capability sooner with the assisted braking device than with an ATC-XP.

And grip strength itself is a variable.  It is quite variable in the general population; presumably climbers are, at least after years of climbing, at the upper end.  But that doesn't mean there aren't substantial differences.  Light people can perform on climbs at the same level as much heavier people even though the lightweights have much lower grip strength.  But the lower grip strength will show up in the belay context, which is absolute rather than relative.

I have caught a factor-2 fall, but it was with a hip belay and an 11mm rope, a combination that might have provided more friction than we currently get with most belay devices, which are designed and purchased more because of their rope-handling characteristics than their force-multiplying factors.  (For example, how many of you own a Metolius BRD...I rest my case.)  

Because I learned to climb in the Pleistocene era, I have caught scores of falls in the UIAA test range with the rope running through a single biner and no other sources of friction. Of course, a weight was used for these belay tests, making them more severe than a corresponding human-body event for the same weight.  Still, anyone who has had this experience would never assert that all falls can be stopped without rope slippage, or promote the fallacy that rope slippage represents, de facto, some kind of failure on the belayer's part.

One of the jokes about attitudes towards belay-device friction is that people seem to grasp the fact that if they do a single-strand rappel on a 9.8 mm rope, they had better double the biners to create more friction.  That would be more friction for holding body weight.  What reasoning process admits this fact and then pretends that the same device with only a single biner is going to hold ten times body weight with no slippage?  

My experience from back in the day and my understanding of modern-day equipment---which simply cannot stop severe falls without slippage and indeed includes that fact as part of its advantages---persuades me to use belay gloves.  (Feel free to call me all the inappropriate names you wish.)  I know the probability of needing their protection is extremely low, and that many climbers have full careers without ever getting burned.  But I dislike the idea of being unprepared for possible adverse scenarios that occur on most trad climbs, scenarios that would result in in rope running.  Burns are bad enough and may be far more than a minor first-aid event, but the potential for losing control of the belay is even worse.

I've climbed for the same N years (N=62 in my case) without ever getting hit by a rock.  If I used that as an argument for not wearing a hard hat, I'd be jumped on.  Belay gloves are in exactly the same category as hard hats, and yet people are comfortable offering the same type of argument for not using them. Sure, you'll probably never need them, but if you do and don't have them, the consequences may be severe indeed (e.g. 1 month for new skin to form and one year for hand to fully heal).

How did you catch a factor 2 fall with a hip belay?  

Belaying with the right hand and the leader fell to your right side without any pro yet?Seems like you wouldnt be able to catch a factor 2 to your left side. 

rgold wrote: I posted the following comments on Supertopo seven years ago, so some of the references to belay devices are quite out of date.  The basic argument is the same and has been the same almost since my first days of climbing 62 years ago.  I did a little editing to keep certain other things up to date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If  you haven't gotten burns, it is because you haven't had to catch a really severe fall, which in fact extremely few people have to do. Yeah, I know all about climbing N years and never getting burned.  I'll see most people their N and raise them a few.  But all it means that none of the falls caught transmitted much more than about 600 lbs to the belay, because most climbers grip strength does not exceed 120 lbs and most belay devices don't multiply this by more than about five.

If and when (and I hope it never happens) you get an impact above 1000 lbf, there will be rope slippage through the belay.  This has been tested and demonstrated over and over again by the European alpine clubs.

In addition to friction in the system that prevents high loads from reaching the belayer, there are other variables, such as rope diameter and belay device type.  In tests done by Mal Daly a few years ago, a Metolius BRD (probably the highest-friction device out there) required a touch under ten lbf to hold a 160 pound load on 9.8mm rope, while an old-style Reverso (one of the least adequate devices ever made) needed about 45 lbf to hold the same load.  Obviously, the Reverso guy, whose device multiplies his grip strength by about 3, is going to have rope burns long before the BRD gal, whose device multiplies her grip strength by about sixteen.

Update: assisted braking devices don't have an associated force multiplier.  Of course for low-impact falls no braking force from the belayer is required, but after a certain threshold, the belayer has to brake, and the force multiplication curve levels out considerably faster than that for an ATC-XP.  This means that the assisted braking device will ultimately require more grip strength than the ATC-XP.  and the grip strength requirements will exceed human capability sooner with the assisted braking device than with an ATC-XP.

And grip strength itself is a variable.  It is quite variable in the general population; presumably climbers are, at least after years of climbing, at the upper end.  But that doesn't mean there aren't substantial differences.  Light people can perform on climbs at the same level as much heavier people even though the lightweights have much lower grip strength.  But the lower grip strength will show up in the belay context, which is absolute rather than relative.

I have caught a factor-2 fall, but it was with a hip belay and an 11mm rope, a combination that might have provided more friction than we currently get with most belay devices, which are designed and purchased more because of their rope-handling characteristics than their force-multiplying factors.  (For example, how many of you own a Metolius BRD...I rest my case.)  

Because I learned to climb in the Pleistocene era, I have caught scores of falls in the UIAA test range with the rope running through a single biner and no other sources of friction. Of course, a weight was used for these belay tests, making them more severe than a corresponding human-body event for the same weight.  Still, anyone who has had this experience would never assert that all falls can be stopped without rope slippage, or promote the fallacy that rope slippage represents, de facto, some kind of failure on the belayer's part.

One of the jokes about attitudes towards belay-device friction is that people seem to grasp the fact that if they do a single-strand rappel on a 9.8 mm rope, they had better double the biners to create more friction.  That would be more friction for holding body weight.  What reasoning process admits this fact and then pretends that the same device with only a single biner is going to hold ten times body weight with no slippage?  

My experience from back in the day and my understanding of modern-day equipment---which simply cannot stop severe falls without slippage and indeed includes that fact as part of its advantages---persuades me to use belay gloves.  (Feel free to call me all the inappropriate names you wish.)  I know the probability of needing their protection is extremely low, and that many climbers have full careers without ever getting burned.  But I dislike the idea of being unprepared for possible adverse scenarios that occur on most trad climbs, scenarios that would result in in rope running.  Burns are bad enough and may be far more than a minor first-aid event, but the potential for losing control of the belay is even worse.

I've climbed for the same N years (N=62 in my case) without ever getting hit by a rock.  But now that hard hats don't weight a ton, I wear one, as do many others.  Belay gloves are in exactly the same category as hard hats: you'll probably never need them, but if you do and don't have them and the fit hits the shan, the consequences may be severe indeed (e.g. 1 month for new skin to form and one year for hand to fully heal).

Yes, I wear belay gloves. This man, I respect, and, I am one of the few on the planet who has experienced rope slippage through an ATC, and, saw it happen to someone else. Three times. I thought it was a given. 

Rich, as Joe says this has never happened since the Eocene, when he started, and I respect him also, I have pondered it. Obviously, Joe and I have huge differences.

But, in the catch a year ago, with slippage to the ATC, my grip strength was no issue, the brake strand was down, and tucked way back by my butt cheek. I think it perhaps comes down to arm​ muscles. Locked or not, I'm sure I couldn't hold the weight we are talking about with one arm​. And, I was expecting to give slack and would not have had my whole arm/body locked. Hand, yes.

In the videos you sent me a year ago, there was only one guy who caught the "fall" without his hand being pulled to the device. Even he went about six inches, and was prepared for it. That was one where they were up on the tower, not down on the ground.

Anyway, that's all I could come up with.

And, for those who are contemplating gloves, I have leather weightlifting gloves. Reinforced exactly where I need it, not bulky, holding up great, and good price too.

Best, Helen

rockklimber wrote:

How did you catch a factor 2 fall with a hip belay?  

Belaying with the right hand and the leader fell to your right side without any pro yet?Seems like you wouldnt be able to catch a factor 2 to your left side. 

If you belay with your right hand (assuming you mean break hand) it is easier to fall on the right because the rope would than rap around you. Falling on the left would mean basically just holding a fall with no friction. See the image of someone belaying with left hand.

ViperScale . wrote:

If you belay with your right hand (assuming you mean break hand) it is easier to fall on the right because the rope would than rap around you. Falling on the left would mean basically just holding a fall with no friction. See the image of someone belaying with left hand.

Yep.  This is exactly what I was saying. 

Even to the right it sounds pretty painful.  To the left it seems the only thing you could do would be rotate left but even then... 

rockklimber wrote:

How did you catch a factor 2 fall with a hip belay?  

Belaying with the right hand and the leader fell to your right side without any pro yet?Seems like you wouldnt be able to catch a factor 2 to your left side. 

The pictures posted by ViperScale don't illustrate the technique most experienced climbers used for belaying the leader. The rope was passed around the hips and the leader's side was clipped to a carabiner on the swami belt, so it couldn't be unwrapped no matter which side the fall occurred on.   But we always did our best to stand off to the side (left side if right-handed) of the fall line with a shoulder against the wall; this way you only had to pivot 90 degrees to be facing outwards.    In my case, there was no pro in yet and I knew the instant the leader's foothold broke that he was going for the big ride, so I was able to turn around and face out before the jolt hit.

In the good old hip belay days, climbers continually attended to the belayers body position and bracing---as a matter of necessity.  Modern techniques and equipment have virtually eradicated the necessity for this type of awareness, except perhaps for certain alpine situations.