Taz Lov2 Rope Access Device, Rope Solo?

I do see what you mean dam0 Cles with In LRS being different. In TRS falls are short and, because most users will have a chest rigs of some sort, the device will likely be correctly orientated. In LRS there are so many more variables that the prudent LRS climber shouldn't give away the two variables already better catered for - 1) the Lov2's (more) bomber attachment point and 2) a plate that won't open.

Even though I'd have to stretch my imagination, I can certainly imagine a LRS fall where a climber might tumble past pointy rock, protruding sticks, other vegetation or even the last quickdraw. The button could be pressed in some unfortunate way. Also, I don't wear a backup device when LRS (just backup knots). If the device fails to catch then I zip down the line until I hit the last knot. Which plate will bear most of the brunt is unclear. Will the Lov3's black notched one hold firm? Probably, but knot as certainly as the Lov2's.

The question that keeps popping into my mind is: why did Taz release this new iteration? It's identical to the previous model, but has more moving parts (which could fail) and possibly a weaker closure plate (is used in LRS)? I simply can't believe that an arborist's desire to attach more conveniently is enough of a reason to call this a new version. I was expecting some geometrical change. Does anyone know of any substantial difference? I do see that Taz submitted it for more testing because it has more EN certifications. Still... a bit of an anticlimax.

It looks like I'm going with the Lov2.

Andrew Climbs wrote:

There's some info on the Lead Rope Solo Facebook group page about it..

Basic jist is it works OK with a chest harness and redirecting the rope through a pulley but requires backup knots as it will not catch an inverted fall. 

I need to find that facebook group.  I'm in the TRS facebook group but not the LRS one.  Thanks for the heads-up.

Noel Z wrote:

I do see what you mean dam0 Cles with In LRS being different. In TRS falls are short and, because most users will have a chest rigs of some sort, the device will likely be correctly orientated. In LRS there are so many more variables that the prudent LRS climber shouldn't give away the two variables already better catered for - 1) the Lov2's (more) bomber attachment point and 2) a plate that won't open.

Even though I'd have to stretch my imagination, I can certainly imagine a LRS fall where a climber might tumble past pointy rock, protruding sticks, other vegetation or even the last quickdraw. The button could be pressed in some unfortunate way. Also, I don't wear a backup device when LRS (just backup knots). If the device fails to catch then I zip down the line until I hit the last knot. Which plate will bear most of the brunt is unclear. Will the Lov3's black notched one hold firm? Probably, but knot as certainly as the Lov2's.

The question that keeps popping into my mind is: why did Taz release this new iteration? It's identical to the previous model, but has more moving parts (which could fail) and possibly a weaker closure plate (is used in LRS)? I simply can't believe that an arborist's desire to attach more conveniently is enough of a reason to call this a new version. I was expecting some geometrical change. Does anyone know of any substantial difference? I do see that Taz submitted it for more testing because it has more EN certifications. Still... a bit of an anticlimax.

It looks like I'm going with the Lov2.

Since the posts r.e the Lov3 and LRS I've been messing about with the device opening and closing the side plate a 100+ times, same with the spring loaded button, also attempting to pull the rope off the tension cleat and out of the metal channel it sits in. I've tried to envisage scenario after scenario where the button could be pressed in and the side plate opening in the event of a nasty fall. Especially one where the device is banging against rock and catching on vegetation etc. It's a possibility and one can never rule it out 100% 

A lot of factors would have to happen in sequence though. Honestly the device is so well engineered and put together its like a tank. It feels absolutely solid. 

In conclusion If I was going to do any LRS and I only had the Lov3 me personally I would definitely use the Lov3 no probs. But I have both the Lov2 and Lov3 and if you asked me which one I would prefer for LRS I would opt for the Lov2 simply because it's got less moving parts and less likely to fail so it's a no brainer to me. 

Like I said in a previous post both devices do exactly the same I.e ascend/descend and capture, the only difference is you can keep one permanently connected to your carabiner and belay loop. I still take the Lov3 off my belay loop lol when attaching/detaching so that feature is neither here nor there for me personally. Although for others arborists etc I can see it may benefit them.

Like you said and I agree it just doesn't make sense why the only design feature on a brand new model is the ability to keep it connected to your belay loop.

Maybe I'm so used to removing my Lov2 off my carabiner to attach/detach all the time the new feature of the Lov3 isn't being used by me for its intended purpose lol. Personally I would've preferred a brand new handle, one more ergonomically designed, one that feels more comfortable in your hand. It's only a very small gripe because otherwise both the Lov2 and Lov3 are sensational for TRS. Sorry I can't speak for LRS as I've never tried it as of yet.

Today I tried to call Taz in France to ask about the geometry and scale and whether these have changed in the newer version. After my saying „parlez-vous anglais?“ in a poor accent, the conversation dies awkwardly. In the mean time I have written an email to Taz. If I get a reply, I'll post here. My questions was: Has anything changed in the geometry or scale of the blocking mechanism or handle?

@dam0 Cles: You're lucky enough to have both versions. If you open them up and look at the actual blocking mechanism, its dimensions and where all parts are positioned, is there anything different?

Noel Z wrote:

Today I tried to call Taz in France to ask about the geometry and scale and whether these have changed in the newer version. After my saying „parlez-vous anglais?“ in a poor accent, the conversation dies awkwardly. In the mean time I have written an email to Taz. If I get a reply, I'll post here. My questions was: Has anything changed in the geometry or scale of the blocking mechanism or handle?

@dam0 Cles: You're lucky enough to have both versions. If you open them up and look at the actual blocking mechanism, its dimensions and where all parts are positioned, is there anything different?

A few photos to compare the Lov2 and Lov3. P.S waiting for a new tension cleat for my Lov2 on the left.

Thanks so much for posting the photos!
The two don't appear to have any substantial differences. The coloured plate side does have holes. I checked the respective manuals and they are unnamed in the nomenclature so I can't judge their significance.
On an side note: I find it interesting that the Lov3 is certified as belay device (EN 15151-1) for use with dynamic ropes (EN 892) from 9.5-10.5. The Lov3's manual even shows four belay modes. 1) top rope belay of the harness, 2) lead belay of the harness, 3) a belay direct of the anchor from above (guide mode) and, 4) belaying from an anchor from below, something very popular in Europe on multipitch routes with solid fixed anchors.
Of course, it appears that the Lov2 is, in essence, the same device so what works with the Lov3 should work with the Lov2. I would test first. It's seem the real difference between the two is that the manufacturer fully discovered their device's full potential and accordingly sent it in for testing to get more certification. Which the Lov3 passed. As someone who doesn't own one (yet) I shouldn't make any proclamations, but for my intended use the Lov2 appears to be the slightly safer of the tow "in reality", where the Lov3 is the safer "on paper".

I've ordered the Lov2.

If one is going to use it for both LRS and TRS, I would suggest getting the Lov3. I have the Lov2 and it is bomber and if you're only going to TRS, it's fine. If you're going to LRS and use the setup below, you only have to undo the chest harness pulley. However for me and my Lov2, it doesn't seem like that much more work to take it off after leading and rapping and turn and flip the device - you don't even have to unload the rope. 

The following setup is from Yann Camus the owner of the Lead Rope Solo FB group

Cord around waist loop and leg loop --> swivel --> Petzl Ring Open --> Lov3 --> harness pulley

(This is similar and was his original setup: https://youtu.be/lTJwuIBLJ-k)

My comments and LRS setup:

A swivel is cool but it's just too many linkages for me. YMMV. 

The few times I've tried LRS with it, I've used one of the following two setups (sorry no photos):

1) steel auto locker --> belay loop --> Lov2 --> centered chest harness pulley

2) steel auto locker --> through harness loop & leg loop --> Lov2 facing left--->  harness pulley on left harness strap

The second setup has the Lov2 facing left to feed the pulley efficiently and it offsets and separates the live and dead lines slightly.

(I've used both a make-shift sling harness and a Petzl Torse for both TRS and LRS)

With either of these setups you have to remove the Lov2 to turn and flip it after you've lead and rapped the route so you can reascend in TRS mode.  However, it really not that big of a deal...you don't even need to take the rope out of it. 

I've mainly stopped leading these days (too old and am on blood thinners) so these are just a few tests that I've done in the past to check out how it is to use for LRS. However, I've been actively using it for a couple of years now for TRS and Lov it (pun intended) except for the size and weight.

PS - With this LRS setup, you need to tie an occasional back-up knot because of the good possibility of it not holding an inverted fall.

One other note in regards to a previous comment. It is my understanding that there is no rating differences between the Lov2 and Lov3. They've continue testing and approval ratings, but functionally (except for the ability to open the device while attached), the devices and their capabilities are the same. The ratings would apply to both devices even though even on early Lov2 devices it doesn't have the later ratings printed on it.

With my first pitches behind me, here are my first impressions. 

For the easy stuff, where I tend not to fall, everything was as expected. A very nice device. Ideal for safe lapping and lowering.

As soon as I climbed, and fell off, harder routes I had issues. My backup device (Micro Traxion) under the Taz Lov was engaging before the Taz Lov. The Taz Lov was sort of engaged, it was at least held upright above the MT.
It got worse where the falls were subtler or straight down in nature. In this instance that Taz Lov just drops with me and slammed into the always reliably locked MT underneath it.  A burly Taz Lov crashing into the modestly-sized MT is rattling experience. Of course I had backup knots below me. Previously, I was using a ISC Rocker above an MT. The ISC Rocker is also a straight trough pivot device, but pivots using less slack. The ISC Rocker does not have a handle to release and lower, which is why I bought the Lov. I'm sure if I trailed the MT it might solve some issues, but for a drop fall it would slam into the MT even harder due to the increase gap between them. Also the dropping from even higher onto an MT is just asking for the ropes sheath to be stripped and one's pants to be soiled.

Is my setup wrong? My MT is on an oval locker on my belay loop.

Is the device maybe unsuited to my climbing style? I'm short, flexible and have a bouldery-style. I use the frogging, flagging and inside edging techniques a lot. I climb very staticaly and deliberate, so my falls are subtle and more like dropping. My initial feelings are that climbing style might be one factor.

I was going to buy a Trango Vergo and an extra MT and use the Vergo for lowering on, after having used it to unweight and disengage the two MTs. Has anyone any advice?

Hmm...interesting. You’re talking about TRS? I’ve never had an issue but then I carefully manage my rope and there’s never any slack build up. What size/kind of rope. How much rope was out when this occurred? I wonder about the spring in the cleat.  I‘ve had personal correspondence with someone from Japan (high-end climber - up to .14s) who had a Lov and the spring in the cleat seemed to not be up to par. I think he either got it exchanged or got a new spring - can’t remember.

I would never use two straight through devices together. I personally don’t like having two units that operate similarly. You could try extending the Lov up from the belay loop slightly with cording on separate the devices. In my climbing I climb very statically also - only an occasional dead point - no dyno’s.

I have used a Vergo a bit - but not as an added device for rapping. I‘ve used it instead of the Lov as the primary device for TRS: https://sicgrips.blogspot.com/2020/08/vergo-for-top-rope-soloing.html
It doesn’t pivot quite as much and depending upon the setup (size/type of rope) it may not feed quite as well (might require slightly more weight on the end of the rope). I use 9.4 - 9.6 ropes. You could possibly used it instead of a GG to lower as I outlined at the end of my post above.

Also for me I’ve just found some routes that are less than ideal for me to TRS - ones that wander, or have a lot of transition from overhanging to slab. The rope is always in my face and there is an outward pull unless I put a piece in to hold it in next to the wall. Best TRS for me is slightly less than to slightly more than vertical and that does not wander...YMMV

Yes, the problems were encountered while TRSing. I used 9.8-10mm ropes. Feeding was otherwise fine with this thickness of rope. The rope was weighted with a small set of nuts. I too would never ever use two straight through devices at the same time. The problems occurred while using the Taz Lov above a MT on a single line. The Taz Lov being raised with a chest rig. Just as in your blog.
I have since done some home testing and found the solution. In short: don't attach the devices with smallish carabiners and don't over clutter your belay loop. 

Compared to any straight through device I've used (Rocker & Goblin), the Taz Lov has a large rotating radius. As it locks, it rotates needing a minimum amount of rope from below to rotate fully. In my case, I was connecting both the Lov and the MT using two Mammut Wall Micro Ovals. These carabiners are not tiny, but are on the shorter side. The shorted carabiners decreased real gap between the Lov and the MT. Not good. I substituted these for two standard sized Kong Ovals and the distance became larger and the Lov now had enough rope to fully rotate before the MT grabbed. Also, I would say to make sure your one's belay loop is free from clutter so that it can rise up fully if required with the MT. In my case, I had a Big D-Maillon beside the loop and alos a thick PAS girth hitched. As the belay loop is large that both of these, they will, from time to time, work their way under the belay loop causing a shortened belay loop. the belay loop should be free to move.

In a BetaClimber's video, he talks briefly about how important it is to keep the Taz Lov and the MT separate. His solution is a bit too much for my taste, but he makes a good point. Like I said, a decently sized free moving carabiner should be enough.
https://youtu.be/A46ZphJz_Ps?t=499

AND.. thanks for the LRS setup images and information!

Glad you got it sorted out. I’ve used the Lov2 and MT with different ‘biners but I guess the combo was never small enough to cause the issues you had. 

Stay safe.

My head is hurting after them last few posts regarding LRS lol.

I think I will leave the Lead rope soloing to the hard core :) 

Lov2 Versions - Markings and cleat mount method

On the Taz Lov2, the "tension cleat" is either held in place with a screw, or it is riveted. The photo below is of a rivetted version. Replacing the screwed in cleat versions is simple. Taz will send one for €13 + shipping and it can be self assembled. If, however, your tension cleat is rivetted, then it must to sent to Taz in France, which would mean additional two-way shipping charges and a period without your device. Also, if you've modded it, would Taz refuse to repair it? Just thoughts... manufacturers can be sensitive about these things.
The rivetted version, does however have some advantages in that it comes on the newer devices, which carry the updated EN markings for "official" use with dynamic ropes as a assisted braking belay device. The version has the same markings as the Taz Lov3, to my eye. Also, if one were to mod the spring in the cleat, which can be grabby on thicker ropes, it would be easier to do this if the cleat were screwed mounted.
The cleat is without doubt plastic, but its haptic is that of fibreglass reinforced plastic. If this is the case, it will likely be very hardwearing. I assume Taz would replace free of charge if it were to wear out while still under warranty. If the plastic is not reinforced with fibreglass, then the costs of frequent replacing could be high to and fro from France. Maybe someone here who has been using the device for some time can chime in regarding how hardwearing the plastic is. Of course, there are advantages to having a rivetted and not a screwed-in cleat, to having the manufacturer replace a part a while do so, look over the device and to having up to date EN markings. Different horses for different courses. I just wanted to pass on the information. Also, there remains the possibility that the devices are not exactly the same and perhaps the 9.5mm rating on dynamic ropes is attained by way of different cleat versions - maybe there is a minute size difference or spring tensions vary?

Lov3

I don't have a Lov3, but looking at the images on the internet, the cleat appears to be rivetted.  Also, it appears to not have the corresponding holes on the brake end which can be used to mount the device inverted to a chest harness, as seen here in the video.
https://youtu.be/lTJwuIBLJ-k?t=291

Noel Z wrote:

Lov2 Versions - Markings and cleat mount method

On the Taz Lov2, the "tension cleat" is either held in place with a screw, or it is riveted. The photo below is of a rivetted version. Replacing the screwed in cleat is simple. Taz will send one for €13 + shipping and it can be self assembled. If, however, your cleat is rivetted, then it must to sent to Taz in France, which would mean additional two-way shipping charges and a period without your device. Also, if you've modded it, would Taz send it back or refuse to repair it? Just thoughts... manufacturers can be sensitive about these things.

Lov3

I don't have a Lov3, but looking at the images on the internet, the cleat appears to be rivetted.  Also, it appears to not have the corresponding holes on the brake end which can be used to mount the device inverted to a chest harness, as seen here in the video.
https://youtu.be/lTJwuIBLJ-k?t=291

Another interesting in depth breakdown. 

Regarding replacing the tension cleat I can confirm there is no need to send the riveted version of either the Lov2 or Lov3 back to Taz in France.

Both my Lov2 and Lov3 are the riveted versions, As explained in previous posts I personally removed the Tension Cleat from my Lov2 . I did it by snipping the plastic down with a pair of pliers/cutters until all the plastic was removed just leaving the rivet. I then just gently rocked the rivet back and forth with my pliers until it snapped, very easy to remove with no damage to the Lov2 in the process. Pictures included with the Tension cleat removed from my Lov2 and in place on my Lov3 + instructions how to fit a new tension cleat.

dam0 Cles wrote:

Regarding replacing the tension cleat I can confirm there is no need to send the riveted version of either the Lov2 or Lov3 back to Taz in France.

That's useful to know. Taz told me otherwise. It's good to hear that the rivetted cleat is easily removed.
What about assembly? Did Taz send you the replacement? Is the replacement a screw in or a rivet one?

Looking at your side by side device images again from your earlier post, it's clear that both of yours are EN rated as belay devices for use with dynamic rope. So, the rivetted Lov2 and the Lov3 are, in terms of what they are rated for, the very same. Official. They just close differently and have different holes. I just bought a Lov2 and it's rivetted, so presumably the earliest Lov2, with the screw in tension cleat, which is officially not rated for any use with dynamic rope, seems to be harder to find. Most online shops selling the Lov2 still show the product photos of the earliest Lov2 version so if you want a particular Lov2 version, be aware there are subtle differences.

I have now TRS and LRS with it. The LRS setup is the same as Yann's in his Youtube video except I use a Austraialpin Ovalock carabiner and not a Maillon to connect. I immediately preferred LRSing with it compared to my Eddy and GG+. I find it very convenient, especially for TRSing. It is very well made. While TRSing on my thickest dynamic rope, a 10.5, it was as grabby as a Shunt (too grabby) and the rope end will need to be well weighted. On my 9.8 dynamic rope it runs better in TRSsing, but certainly not without being weighted. For LRS I'd say 9.8 is about the max. thickness. Yann's suggested LRS min. diameter of around 9.5 sounds right.

Noel Z wrote:

That's useful to know. Taz told me otherwise. It's good to hear that the rivetted cleat is easily removed.
What about assembly? Did Taz send you the replacement? Is the replacement a screw in or a rivet one?

Hi
I'm still waiting for my replacement cleat, regarding the cleat I've been assured by Taz that it will be the screw in type and not the rivet type.

I assume Taz would not risk replacing with the rivet type otherwise the device would need to be shipped back to Taz and that wouldn't go down well with customers.
I wouldn't be happy personally. I think Taz have made a very wise decision by making the replacement a screw type self install. Judging by the instructions in the pic it looks very easy.
Soon as I receive my replacement cleat I will do a little vid documenting the install.

Sorry its taken so long to post the Tension Cleat Replacement Tutorial I've been very very busy  the last couple of months. I finally got around to doing the vid. Anyone interested check it out below.

https://youtu.be/-7gE15CFewI

dam0 Cles wrote:

Sorry its taken so long to post the Tension Cleat Replacement Tutorial I've been very very busy  the last couple of months. I finally got around to doing the vid. Anyone interested check it out below.

https://youtu.be/-7gE15CFewI

How many TRS pitches do you reckon the cleat is good for?

Chris H wrote:

How many TRS pitches do you reckon the clean is good for?

Hi good question, 

We have both the Taz Lov2 and Lov3 and have a good few hundred pitches under our belts now between them. Our Lov2 which is the one I've replaced the tension cleat on in the video was nothing to do with wear and tear with the tension cleat. I can barely see any wear and tear on our Lov3 the same with our Lov2 as I remember. 

There is no wear and tear as far as I can tell climbing and taking falls I'm sure there is but its negligible in my opinion. Most wear and tear will obviously happen abseiling down after a completed pitch. To be honest the plastic the Tension Cleat is made from looks and feels absolutely solid. I'd hazard a guess at a good few hundred or more pitches yet easy :)

At 13 euros plus shipping for a replacement and the ease of doing it yourself I think it's a brilliant piece of kit for TRS :) 

Thanks for posting the instructional video @dam0 Cles!

The cleat is hard wearing and actually exposed to very litte friction. It has that fibreglass reinforced feel, akin to a GriGri's handle. The cleat puts a subtle bend in a bearly weighted rope (bottom weight). The friction created is rope dependent, but always minimal. During rappels, hauling, belaying or just weighting the rope, there is never contact. Once the rope is weighted there is no longer contact with the cleat.