Using the Edelrid Ohm for trad?

My partner is 50kg and I am 80. Does it make any sense to use the Ohm in a trad scenario if it is a straight route and I don't anticipate that much rope drag? I realize it could make it quite hard to pull rope up when I arrive at the belay, but I could clip the ohm to the uppermost piece of the first anchor to avoid the factor 2 fall. Does this make any sense to do?

I doubt that it's feasible.  It's designed for bolts so whatever your first piece is would have to be an anchor that's solid for upward and downward pull.  Additionally, bolts keep the ohm properly oriented and trad gear would allow it to twist around and possible interrupt the free flow of rope through the device.  Just build good multidirectional belay anchors and/or don't fall.  My son and I have about the same weight difference and he belays me on trad.  I climb within my limits, put him on a grigri and ensure that he is well anchored.  ...and I don't fall.

Fixed point belaying is a good alternative when possible.

If the uppermost piece of your anchor is really good and could stand up to repeated pull up and down (ohm moves up and down a lot as you pull rope etc), it could work fine. But I think the use case scenario is very limited and the potential headache pulling rope/adding drag make this not worth bothering. Not to mention that the ohm is quite heavy. I just make sure the belayer is anchored to resist an upwards pull.

Derek DeBruin wrote:

Fixed point belaying is a good alternative when possible.

This is a terrible idea in most cases. This technique is basically appropriate for European-style bolted anchors in which the bolts are lined up vertically. With a gear anchor consisting of pieces laid out approximately horizontally, giving a lead belay directly off of the anchor creates two big problems: (1) the belay device can get yanked upward out of the belayer's hands, and (2) the anchor can fail if it isn't bombproof against an upward pull. 

The basic answer to the OP's question is what Todd Jenkins and Pieter Beerepoot said. You need an anchor with a piece down low that will hold really well against an upward pull, and then the Ohm becomes irrelevant, a belay from the harness is fine, and body weight isn't an issue.

Nathaniel Francis wrote:

but I could clip the ohm to the uppermost piece of the first anchor to avoid the factor 2 fall.

Well, factor 2 falls are just bad in general. But if the special concern with this partner arises because of a difference in body weight, then a factor 2 fall is the only type of lead fall in which that difference in body weight doesn't matter, because the belayer is getting pulled down. Clipping the leader's strand into a piece on the anchor is something you can do anyway, without an Ohm, and it does have the advantage that then the belayer only gets pulled up, which is typically easier for them to deal with physically than getting pulled down, especially if they're standing on a ledge and the anchor is low down.

You might consider using half ropes? Its not a silver bullet solution to your problem, but it does help.

jcs

OP, I bet the Ohm would be useful under the right circumstances for single pitch/the first pitch, but for multipitch routes I think it is a poor match for the issues that a weight difference creates. If you anticipate falling, this is the ideal situation to use a direct lead belay. Look at multipitchclimbing.com for details. The direct belay completely eliminates any interference from a weight difference.

Ben Crowell wrote:

This is a terrible idea in most cases. This technique is basically appropriate for European-style bolted anchors in which the bolts are lined up vertically. With a gear anchor consisting of pieces laid out approximately horizontally, giving a lead belay directly off of the anchor creates two big problems: (1) the belay device can get yanked upward out of the belayer's hands, and (2) the anchor can fail if it isn't bombproof against an upward pull. 

The basic answer to the OP's question is what Todd Jenkins and Pieter Beerepoot said. You need an anchor with a piece down low that will hold really well against an upward pull, and then the Ohm becomes irrelevant, a belay from the harness is fine, and body weight isn't an issue.

Well, factor 2 falls are just bad in general. But if the special concern with this partner arises because of a difference in body weight, then a factor 2 fall is the only type of lead fall in which that difference in body weight doesn't matter, because the belayer is getting pulled down. Clipping the leader's strand into a piece on the anchor is something you can do anyway, without an Ohm, and it does have the advantage that then the belayer only gets pulled up, which is typically easier for them to deal with physically than getting pulled down, especially if they're standing on a ledge and the anchor is low down.

I would suggest reading more about direct lead belays, then maybe experimenting with it. They work in North America just as well as Europe. I'm going to put my response in bullet points

• DLB requires a multidirectional anchor point that doesn't move around too much...doesn't matter what is used to create the anchor
• it's no harder or easier on vertically or horizontally separated bolts. do not even mention equalization or I will flip out
• if you are using gear, put it in however is best suited to the anchor you want to build. no one is forcing horizontal separation
• if the belayer can't reach the belay device, you set it up wrong. also, they really only need to control the brake strand in a fall
• yeah...weak/inadequate anchors can fail. if you have a big weight difference, an indirect belay is just as likely to result in a upward pull on the anchor, and this time you have a second mass (belayer) moving too
• you go on to describe a situation that is dependent on an upwards pull anchor, after dismissing a direct belay for the same reason
• direct belays are often the best way to mitigate FF2. cue the Will Gadd article debate

I've read some articles and watched some videos and I'm not sold.  I don't believe the DLB is a "terrible idea" nor that it is anything more than one "alternative" to an ohm or to anchoring the belayer for an upward pull.  One thing I noticed watching videos is that, while the belayer doesn't get slammed into the wall, the device and the brake strand with it move incredibly fast for whatever short distance.  I've never worn belay gloves in my life and I generally laugh at them like I laugh at belay glasses but, if you're not wearing gloves during a fall on a DLB then, you're just as likely to let go of the brake strand.  My instincts have been tested several times climbing and the instinct of protecting myself with one hand and two feet has never failed.  My brake hand is always braking.  

Conversely, when my son belays me with that 30-40kg weight difference, He belays me off his belay loop but, he is already tight on his upward pull protection so that he doesn't get slammed.  Essentially, his belay loop is the masterpoint of the anchor and it's not moving anywhere.  I guess this is sort of like a DLB except he doesn't have to learn anything new, he gets to keep belaying like he always belays; he just doesn't get to move around too much.

I personally believe a lot can be said for always doing something the same way and building good muscle memory that way.  I've added many tips, tricks and alternative methods to my kit bag over the years but, I find that their necessity is rarely ever called for.  I'll bet people who always use a DLB feel the same way.  Why do it a different way?  This is how we do it and it always works.  

@Nathaniel:
A lightweight belayer was one of the intended use cases for fixed point belay when it was conceived. Despite other remarks, I still recommend it in this case. A good intro to the basics is here:
https://www.alpinesavvy.com/blog/belaying-the-leader-with-a-fixed-point-belay

@Todd:
If the belayer is secured down, the effect is similar to a fixed point belay. The differences are that forces on the anchor and/or the leader may be increased in a fall, and they will be increased on the belayer. I also find it easier to make a fixed point instead of rigging to the belay loop as the belayer's stance becomes irrelevant. These are not always problems, but there are times they might be. Why leave the fixed point as the belayer's belay loop when you can take it off the belayer and reduce forces all around and maybe increase comfort?

Re: gloves, I'd strongly recommend gloves for belaying period. If you've never needed gloves, you likely haven't caught the high factor/force falls that you often see tested in the videos of fixed point belaying (not a judgment or anything like that; most folks--thankfully--have never had to catch factor 2 falls). This is because testing is often done at the worst case scenario so we know systems work for all purposes, even though we rarely encounter them in the field. Whether munter, tube device, grigri, etc. and on the harness or on the anchor, gloves are a really good idea for high factor falls. I have held a number of these falls in testing and they are brutal.

@Ben:
Respectfully, I strongly disagree. JC has covered most of it well, so I won't pile on, but I will offer some other things to consider.

The fixed point belay is indeed the ideal tool for weight disparities (having been developed for it), and it is also great for many other use cases. However, where the fixed point belay is indeed NOT ideal is when working a route where taking/resting is likely to happen repeatedly. It's simply very difficult to apply sport climbing/hangdog tactics using that tool. Instead, a grigri on the harness and a chariot belay tend to be better. (There's a great video clip of this that made the rounds recently where the belayer is pulled up significantly as the climber falls into and then through the frame, but I can't find it at the moment; hopefully someone can help me out.) Here are some older slides I put together that illustrate some of the forces in fixed point belaying as well as the alternatives to a fixed point belay (including chariot belay):
http://staff.weber.edu/derekdebruin/research/fpbslides.pdf

As for the concerns of rigging on gear, etc., a fixed point belay can be rigged with any rigging method you prefer that features a masterpoint. Once the masterpoint is established, the backside of the belayer's clove hitch is simply secured to an upward pull piece. Here's a document from the DAV that I translated that includes a number of rigging options:
http://staff.weber.edu/derekdebruin/research/anchorsdav2020.pdf

Todd Jenkins wrote:

 I'll bet people who always use a DLB feel the same way.  Why do it a different way?  This is how we do it and it always works.  

In Germany the DLB is more common but the belay method changes from pitch to pitch if necessary. Each method has situational advantages which are sometimes so subtle that it doesn't matter, other times one method is just safer.

i weigh about 45kg/100lbs and often climb with partners 70kg/150lbs and up. When I am belaying a heavier climber off my harness, I just either tether myself or the anchor master point to an upward pull piece (depends on whether I am prioritizing protecting the anchor or protecting myself from upward pull, which depends on the stance, the anchor gear, what the next pitch and the next gear looks like, etc.). I usually use the backside of my clove to let the dynamic rope absorb some of the force. Works perfectly.

I almost never use the Ohm even on sport routes; the drag is intolerable on steep rock, and I find that it’s very finicky about belayer position below whatever it’s attached to and the rope line and terrain between pro 1 and 2 to work smoothly. Even if attached to an appropriate piece of gear I think the specific scenarios where it would be useful are so limited it’s not worth carrying.

Tethering the anchor and/or belayer is simpler and more versatile. Other ideas for mitigating big weight differences in multipitch:

- Direct/Fixed Point Lead Belay as described above; I think this is most useful with a Munter hitch specifically in high FF2 risk scenarios. You can then set up a harness belay after the initial section if you prefer. Adding a belay device to a FBLB rather than using munter complicates things (must redirect the load strand) and takes away the major benefits of the FBLB - which are that you can operate it with your hands well away from the belay point and you can feed slack fast.

- Having the lighter person lead the hard pitches :)

Eunny Jang wrote:

Other ideas for mitigating big weight differences in multipitch:

- 

- Having the lighter person lead the hard pitches :)

I find having the other person lead the hard pitches a great tactic in general, even with no weight difference. :)

If anyone is interested in trying this ill advised idea I have an OHM listed in the For Sale Forum.

The way the Ohm works is when the system is weighted, the rope angle created by the belayer standing away from the wall, pulls the ohm perpendicular from the wall, and forces the rope in to a groove that creates resistance.. 

to use the OHM in a Trad scenario you’d need a first piece that can handle outward and upward pull- that seems doable.. 

I’d wonder if it’s possible to create the needed rope angle in a multi-pitch scenario.. if the rope angle doesn’t pull the ohm “out” from the wall, it won’t engage..

also the ohm weighs like 6lbs and for as indispensable as it is in certain situations- it’s infuriating when it doesn’t work-

my experience: the OHM allowed my 12yr old daughter to safely belay me and catch some giant whippers. We passed the gym lead belay test and she was my main partner in the gym for years.. certain wall angles trip up the OHM which would sometimes result in getting shorted on clips. (Think full Handful of rope, inches short of the clip- and not able to get more rope) Once on an outside sport route it took 10min to lower me from the anchors, as it wouldn’t disengage.. 

the one time she and I did Trad in Yosemite- we just used a ground anchor and trees on route.. (sunnyside bench)

Trying to follow Derek's lead and not pile on but rather add information.

The biggest logical flaw in the argument against the direct belay is the claim that the anchor is endangered by direct upward pulls if a direct belay is used.  If the belayer is much lighter than the leader, then they're going to fly up if the leader falls and the anchor has in all cases to be constructed with an upward directional to keep it from being stripped.  So in the case of the light belayer,  the same type of upward-resistant anchor as required by the direct belay is needed, so the need for such rigging can't be blamed on the direct belay.  And if you have to build an upward load-resistant belay anyway, why wouldn't you belay directly off it, considering all the advantages of the direct belay in protecting the belayer?

I think a partially hidden issue is that we don't build upward resistance into a lot of our trad anchors, even if maybe we should (I do not excuse myself for this failure).  So many of us are not really in the habit of looking for upward-directional opportunities, which means, when we're sitting at our keyboards, that our ability to judge how easy or hard it is to do this regularly is not based on much actual experience.  But if the cracks where the anchor is constructed are more or less regular vertical cracks, then it is going to be easy to get an upward-directional cam.  A nut might be harder, of course, and does require that we're thinking about inverted constrictions.  But not all anchoring situations depend on vertical cracks.  If you can get your power point piece in a horizontal placement (I'm lookin' at you Shawangunks), then you've got your upward resistance.  Finally, features of the belay stance, like a big boulder, can sometimes be employed for upward resistance.  

Although I'd be very wary of promoting this to a recommendation, in a pinch one can rig so that the belayer is fully hanging on the power point, to at least mitigate the lifting forces on it.

So no, you can't use a direct belay in all possible cases, but it is very far from being a "terrible idea," and is a very viable solution to a lot of belaying issues, not just ones where there is a weight mismatch.

I've used the Ohm a lot sport climbing and would vote for NO. Sure, there are some situations where it might work but for an Ohm to work it needs the angles to be pretty much perfect, as noted by a prior poster. Otherwise it just doesn't engage. Better solution in trad is just to build good anchors on every pitch so your lighter belay buddy doesn't get yanked up too much. And build a ground anchor for pitch 1. 

Rgold, when you say an "upward-directional cam" do you mean it should be oriented for an upward pull when placed? Most of the gear anchors I have ever built were mostly with cam placements oriented downward with the assumption that they can rotate and hold an upward pull. obviously there is some amount of inspection needed to check the crack is deep and parallel enough to allow this safely, but placing a piece that stays oriented for an upward pull would take a bit more thought

Jason wrote:

Rgold, when you say an "upward-directional cam" do you mean it should be oriented for an upward pull when placed? Most of the gear anchors I have ever built were mostly with cam placements oriented downward with the assumption that they can rotate and hold an upward pull. obviously there is some amount of inspection needed to check the crack is deep and parallel enough to allow this safely, but placing a piece that stays oriented for an upward pull would take a bit more thought

Not speaking for Rich, but the issue with the Ohm is it's made to clip to a bolt. So when you add in the pivoting movement of a trad piece and some kind of extension sling, it's going to work much less quickly, if at all. 

Andrew Rice wrote:

Not speaking for Rich, but the issue with the Ohm is it's made to clip to a bolt. So when you add in the pivoting movement of a trad piece and some kind of extension sling, it's going to work much less quickly, if at all. 

This would be easy to test at the climbing wall by clipping it to a 60cm sling and standing to the left, right, under the climber and out from the wall. Job done. 

David Coley wrote:

This would be easy to test at the climbing wall by clipping it to a 60cm sling and standing to the left, right, under the climber and out from the wall. Job done. 

Sure, if you want to test that every single pitch on every single climb. Seems sub-optimal to me. 

Jason wrote:

Rgold, when you say an "upward-directional cam" do you mean it should be oriented for an upward pull when placed? Most of the gear anchors I have ever built were mostly with cam placements oriented downward with the assumption that they can rotate and hold an upward pull. obviously there is some amount of inspection needed to check the crack is deep and parallel enough to allow this safely, but placing a piece that stays oriented for an upward pull would take a bit more thought

Yes, I meant a cam placed and oriented for an upward load.  In smooth parallel-sided splitters, cams may rotate and still hold, but in more featured rock or if the placements are shallow I have my doubts. And I was speaking of the belay anchor not the Ohm.

I've never used an Ohm so have no idea how well or badly they'd work for trad.