Grivel north machine, vs tech machine, vs petzl quark

Karl Henize wrote:

The North Machine pommel is smaller than everything else on the market, not just the X-Dream pommel.  I think most people feel that North Machine pommel is smaller than they want it to be, even if it is "adequate" for most climbing.  The North Machine pommel does support your weight, so you can keep a relaxed grip on the handle.  However, a wider pommel would be more comfortable on vertical and overhanging terrain.  

Is the pommel on the NM's an improvement from the Quantum Techs? I have tried out a climbing partner's QTs, and I found that the lower pommel was too curved and narrow, and with a thicker glove on it created a pinch point that did not feel secure or comfortable. (see comparison in image)
Thoughts? 

Tim H wrote:

Is the pommel on the NM's an improvement from the Quantum Techs? I have tried out a climbing partner's QTs, and I found that the lower pommel was too curved and narrow, and with a thicker glove on it created a pinch point that did not feel secure or comfortable. (see comparison in image)
Thoughts? 

It just depends who you ask. Some prefer the deeper notch/extra support of the Quantum/ Matrix techs. I found it a bit ridiculous: just too huge for my taste, but certainly not a comfort issue. I have used the n. machines but it was during my very first few outings, so I sucked at everything. Judging by the looks though, I can understand why some think the north machine pommel is just too small. You mention the QT being narrow—It felt wide to me. Loads of surface area. Side note, I have moved away from this type of tool, as for ice and mixed climbing it’s just nicer to have an ergonomically shaped handle and for snow climbing a spike.

I have used both the North Machine Carbons and Quarks. They are both great all around alpine tools, but I prefer the Quarks at this point.  

The Quarks have a balanced swing, their picks bite just a bit better IMO, they have a secondary hand position with the trigger, and most importantly a spike at the bottom.

The North Machines have a top heavy swing (more weight at the head), the picks are beefier so better for mixed but not ice (better steel), the carbon fiber wrap does protect your hands from the cold, but they don't have a spike.

Really the only complaint I have with the North Machines is that Grivel put a trekking pole carbide point at the bottom rather than a spike.....! I used them for about 3 years before I got sick of never being able to get purchase when plunging on hard packed snow, etc.  The North Machines always lended themselves towards mixed and moderate ice climbing where I feel like the Quarks are more well rounded for ice, mixed, and general/ ski mountaineering.

Caelan Dunwoody wrote:

Hello! I’m looking into getting a set of ice tools, just wondering which of the following would be the most durable and versatile option. I’m mostly considering the grivel north machine and tech machine, but also looking at the petzl quark. What are some of the pros and cons?
thanks!

Mountain project says you live in New Hampshire, therefore you will be mostly ice climbing. Go with an ergonomic technical tool like the tech machine.

Ergonomic tools have more aggressive pick/handle angles that make them feel more secure to hang on. Ergonomic tools require slightly more of a wrist flick than a shoulder swing to get the pick buried, which is the more efficient technique anyway, but less intuitive at first. The main disadvantage will be that you can't plunge in snow for stability.

The petzl quark and grivel north machine are similar concepts. Differences will be grip geometry (grivel is narrower), carbon wrap (grivel, might be warmer when gripped from some parts of the shaft), and balance. The balance is the most important part and depending on how you prefer to swing you might prefer one or the other. The advantage of these tools is their ability to plunge in steep snow (the ergonomic pommels tend to get in the way) while simultaneously performing well on moderately technical terrain (classic ice axes come up short on the latter).

Grivel is more durable. Petzl has had a history of minor issues that arise in unusual circumstances like head wobble if you do a lot of scottish style mixed and torque on your tools a lot, or pinky rests breaking when people fall while tethered to their tools, etc. Issues vary from one generation to the next, but seem to occur mainly because Petzl pushes the design specs of their products closer to their limits in their focus on cutting weight. It's not something most people need to be concerned about, and the issues do not impune their safety.

Grivel for technical cragging, scottish style climbing and ambitious alpine routes
Quarks or North Machines (whichever swings better) for moderately technical high altitude climbing (e.g. Cassin Ridge, Ama Dablam southwest ridge, etc), ski mountaineering, and long glacier climbs (e.g. French route on Alpamayo, Kain face on Robson, etc).

If you consider all three tools in your original title, get Tech Machines. Saying you “can’t” plunge these tools...well, they aren’t optimized for plunging, but you CAN plunge them. I regret trading my Tech Machines for 2nd gen Nomics. Right after getting them (guy said they were only 3 years old...used only on ice) the head/shaft interface is bendy as all hell. Point being, as amazing a swing as Petzl tools have (the quark is a GREAT tool btw), the Tech Machine will do what the quark does and then some. I would prefer the Quark if snow was the crux of the route. But if ice/rock is the crux, of those three, Tech Machines are solid. Not so many moving parts. I don’t like that the Quark is so adjustable—the trig rest will break, and the flipping up grip rest will get stuck, and it’s just gimmicky. Swing excellent though...but for climbing, the Tech machine (especially the updated version) is rock solid. Should have kept mine

DeLa Cruce wrote:

If you consider all three tools in your original title, get Tech Machines. Saying you “can’t” plunge these tools...well, they aren’t optimized for plunging, but you CAN plunge them. I regret trading my Tech Machines for 2nd gen Nomics. Right after getting them (guy said they were only 3 years old...used only on ice) the head/shaft interface is bendy as all hell. Point being, as amazing a swing as Petzl tools have (the quark is a GREAT tool btw), the Tech Machine will do what the quark does and then some. I would prefer the Quark if snow was the crux of the route. But if ice/rock is the crux, of those three, Tech Machines are solid. Not so many moving parts. I don’t like that the Quark is so adjustable—the trig rest will break, and the flipping up grip rest will get stuck, and it’s just gimmicky. Swing excellent though...but for climbing, the Tech machine (especially the updated version) is rock solid. Should have kept mine

Can confirm the adjustability is often a pain. I have the newer quarks and the secondary rest comes loose so often that I wound up just cranking it down super tight and then wrapped the shaft with tape above it (for warmth) negating the adjustability anyways. In loose enough snow the whole thing still plunges. In harder pack I think it wasn't going to plunge anyways if the secondary handle is what prevents the plunge. Also seconding that in the Northeast the alpine style tools are great on low grade routes, but my money would have been better spent on a nice set of ergo-style tools for vertical ice and then some old beat up alpine tools for the rest. If I make it out to longer alpine routes than the Quarks can have their moment to shine. I've followed 4+ on them, though can easily see where more aggressive tools would be nicer.

Jake woo wrote:

Can confirm the adjustability is often a pain. I have the newer quarks and the secondary rest comes loose so often that I wound up just cranking it down super tight and then wrapped the shaft with tape above it (for warmth) negating the adjustability anyways. In loose enough snow the whole thing still plunges. In harder pack I think it wasn't going to plunge anyways if the secondary handle is what prevents the plunge. Also seconding that in the Northeast the alpine style tools are great on low grade routes, but my money would have been better spent on a nice set of ergo-style tools for vertical ice and then some old beat up alpine tools for the rest. If I make it out to longer alpine routes than the Quarks can have their moment to shine. I've followed 4+ on them, though can easily see where more aggressive tools would be nicer.

The issue with plunging is not whether or not plunging is possible. It's whether it's efficient. When plunging with technical tools has mattered for me it's been on long steep snow at altitude. You can plunge most tools, even an ergonomic one (I typically invert the head though), but the added resistance adds up and leaves you more tired than it should. These are often in situations where every step is exhausting, and you don't need every plunge to be effortful too.

Bogdan Petre wrote:

The issue with plunging is not whether or not plunging is possible. It's whether it's efficient. When plunging with technical tools has mattered for me it's been on long steep snow at altitude. You can plunge most tools, even an ergonomic one (I typically invert the head though), but the added resistance adds up and leaves you more tired than it should. These are often in situations where every step is exhausting, and you don't need every plunge to be effortful too.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Thanks for the bit of knowledge as I haven't climbed anything at altitude yet.