The carabiner needs a design paradigm shift.

Joseph Chen wrote:

Anybody use this with a microtrax or spoc (specifically trs)? Might actually have a use for this stupid thing 

Lol don't actually. Get a grivel Tau, this variety of double gate is fucking awesome and cross loading is a non issue for everything but LRS. 

Noel Z wrote:

If it's for TRS then you don't need any carabiner with the new Petzl Mini Traxion. You could tie in with a suitable section of cord. No cross loading. No dropping the device. The side plate rotates opens independently from it's connector.

The minitrax seems like an egregiously bad choice for use as a TRS device and I hope nobody follows this suggestion. For hauling, it's nice that you can load the rope without having to remove the device from the anchor. You can keep it permanently attached and not worry about dropping it. I'm a fan.

For TRS, I don't want a device that can be opened without removing your connector. I don't think it's likely, but neither does it seem impossible that some unfortunate interaction between rock and device could lead to opening the sideplate.

Is there a single other device that people use for solo climbing pursuits where you can open the device and remove the rope without having to intentionally open a connector? Seems sketchy af.

Edited to add: I just looked at the Petzl site. Specifically listed function of the Micro is as an emergency ascender, and then of course if you go into their tech tips, they have a bit on self-belay that acknowledges the micro as appropriate for the use case. The mini is not approved or marketed as appropriate for use as PPE. It's for hauling scenarios, period. 

Do not use the mini traxion to attach yourself to the rope.

Slim Pickens wrote:

Is there a single other device that people use for solo climbing pursuits where you can open the device and remove the rope without having to intentionally open a connector? Seems sketchy af.

Taz Lov3. 

Edelrid Pinch.

New Sulu (looks like)

Decide sketchiness for youself.

TThurman wrote:

Can you expand on this? The CLEPSYDRA S K10GS is 97mm long. Your bog standard Petzl Spirit is 95.2mm long. Are you looking for something shorter/smaller than the typical offset D carabiner? Or narrower than one?

The biner plus belay loop give the device about a foot of free range to flop up and down.  That is bad, so to prevent that you have to restrain the device with a shoulder harness which sucks.  Ideally, I want the device to be attached to the harness so it can't move at all.  Noel Z provides a real solution below, where the device is tied directly to the harness using the hard points - not belay loop.   

Noel Z wrote:

If it's for TRS then you don't need any carabiner with the new Petzl Mini Traxion. You could tie in with a suitable section of cord. No cross loading. No dropping the device. The side plate rotates opens independently from it's connector.

I did not know that it could open that way.  Dang!! Now I got more gear to buy!!

Noel Z wrote:

Taz Lov3. 

Edelrid Pinch.

New Sulu (looks like)

Decide sketchiness for youself.

You’re entirely correct with those. I recognize that I’m shifting the goal posts here away from the having to open a connector in order to open the device thing, but I feel like these devices are categorically different than the minitrax. All three are designed to connect human to rope system, and have safety features built to that purpose. The minitrax is designed for use off an anchor and is meant to be relatively easy to open, even under tension. With gloves on even!

Of course people are free to act according to their personal risk tolerance, but using the minitrax as a trs device seems to introduce more issues than it solves.

Anyway, I have to think there are very very few people who would even land on the minitrax as a good choice for this, so this is a weird hypothetical argument I’m choosing to wage here, and a thread derailment. I’ll stop. 

Slim Pickens wrote:

... so this is a weird hypothetical argument I’m choosing to wage here, and a thread derailment. I’ll stop. 

Some of us come here to learn, so as long as you are providing knowledge, I invite you continue.

Mike Gibson wrote:

Some of us come here to learn, so as long as you are providing knowledge, I invite you continue.

Seconded 

Mike Gibson wrote:

The biner plus belay loop give the device about a foot of free range to flop up and down.  That is bad, so to prevent that you have to restrain the device with a shoulder harness which sucks.  Ideally, I want the device to be attached to the harness so it can't move at all.  Noel Z provides a real solution below, where the device is tied directly to the harness using the hard points - not belay loop.   

Noel's suggestion of tying into the hardpoints is what the manual for the Soloist calls for. I use a Quickie Notch Shackle to my belay loop with my Soloist instead.  Its only about 2 inches long, which is nice but its a bit finicky to get the pin out. This conversation sent me to McMaster Carr to look for a better pin choice, and Ill be I'll be ordering one tomorrow once I get home and bust out a set of calipers. Its a push button locking pin with a shrouded button. I'm pretty excited about it actually. I'll post a picture if this conversation is still going Monday.

I can think of two options for going directly to the hard points while using a carabiner. The Kong Ovalone could go to the hardpoints, and the twist in the 'biner would still allow for correct device orientation. A DMM Director Swivel Boss would also allow for connecting directly to the hard points and skipping the belay loop, but it would pull your hard points close together. I've got a couple of the DMM Ceros with the anti-crossloading horns and they are nice

I love the clepsydra S for holding my GG+ while rope soloing. Fiddly for a bit until you get the muscle memory. Its pretty compact and avoids cross loading with a Grigri as well as a nano traxion. Your title is a little mellow dramatic...

TThurman wrote:

Noel's suggestion of tying into the hardpoints is what the manual for the Soloist calls for. I use a Quickie Notch Shackle to my belay loop with my Soloist instead.  Its only about 2 inches long, which is nice but its a bit finicky to get the pin out. This conversation sent me to McMaster Carr to look for a better pin choice, and Ill be I'll be ordering one tomorrow once I get home and bust out a set of calipers. Its a push button locking pin with a shrouded button. I'm pretty excited about it actually. I'll post a picture if this conversation is still going Monday.

I can think of two options for going directly to the hard points while using a carabiner. The Kong Ovalone could go to the hardpoints, and the twist in the 'biner would still allow for correct device orientation. A DMM Director Swivel Boss would also allow for connecting directly to the hard points and skipping the belay loop, but it would pull your hard points close together. I've got a couple of the DMM Ceros with the anti-crossloading horns and they are nice

The Quickie is definitely different in design than a traditional carabiner.  It has plenty of its own annoyances, but definitely bears consideration.  Perhaps a standard steel shackle with screw pin would be even better here.  One major issue I see is a steel-on-aluminum connection point.

Maybe a solo device with an integrated shackle that attaches directly to hard points?  

Jared E wrote:

If only someone could design a knotless carabiner… wait

anyway, your time would probably be better spent getting a normal anti crossload and using a device with a swivel cheek such as Taz Lov3, AC Sulu, etc. because no one is about to shake up the carabiner landscape

Funny you should ask....one could use a diamond knot soft shackle, or a lashing as others have suggested.  But I'm experimenting with this:

The Seamless toggled loop is proof against cross-loading.  Those alloy toggles are a little big, but they're what I had on hand. The structure in that configuration has a break load of 3,000kg, or 6,600lbs for the English-speaking world.  Or just over 29kN.

I have the toggled loops a specific length for my jugging setup, but they can be made as small as 2" (closed).  The toggle will Absolutely Not wiggle itself out of the loop--I've been using toggles for fifteen years--but the fearful and the unbelieving still tend to wrap a velcro cable strap around the loop.

Please note: these are not in production for climbing yet.  They have not been UIAA or EN certified.  Their construction requires special skills and techniques, and you need specific materials to achieve the load.

But Jared, we could call them "Knotless carabiners"

Slim Pickens wrote:

The minitrax seems like an egregiously bad choice for use as a TRS device and I hope nobody follows this suggestion. For hauling, it's nice that you can load the rope without having to remove the device from the anchor. You can keep it permanently attached and not worry about dropping it. I'm a fan.

For TRS, I don't want a device that can be opened without removing your connector. I don't think it's likely, but neither does it seem impossible that some unfortunate interaction between rock and device could lead to opening the sideplate.

Its a 3 way mechanism just like a 3 stage carabiner. Its incredibly safe. Have you ever played with one?
2 Mini's is fantastic for TRS..... If you're not opposed to toothed primary.....which I am fully in the camp of its all good.

Is there a single other device that people use for solo climbing pursuits where you can open the device and remove the rope without having to intentionally open a connector? Seems sketchy af.

Edited to add: I just looked at the Petzl site. Specifically listed function of the Micro is as an emergency ascender, and then of course if you go into their tech tips, they have a bit on self-belay that acknowledges the micro as appropriate for the use case. The mini is not approved or marketed as appropriate for use as PPE. It's for hauling scenarios, period. 

the micro is less suitable as PPE than the mini from a standards/regs point of view, despite use cases as an ascender in petzl literature. Its certed to this standard EN567. Not suitable as a single point PPE.
However the micro is tested to a LONG list of standards, CE EN 567, CE EN 12278, CE EN 12841 type B (hint hint), NFPA 2500 Technical Use Pulley and Rope grab, XF 494: FZL-Z-Q 8.5/11, XF 494: FZL-H-Q 8.5/11. 
You decide if one is more suitable, but from a function point of view as a mountaineering rope clamp, no difference.

Do not use the mini traxion to attach yourself to the rope.  I would not attach myself to the rope with this device as I'm not confident in its function to stay closed in use.

FTFY

Ben Zartman wrote:

But Jared, we could call them "Knotless carabiners"

There is "harness breakage" thread in "Injuries", perfect place to hawk your swami belt held together by shoe laces

Mr Rogers wrote:

Its a 3 way mechanism just like a 3 stage carabiner. Its incredibly safe. Have you ever played with one?
2 Mini's is fantastic for TRS..... If you're not opposed to toothed primary.....which I am fully in the camp of its all good.

the micro is less suitable as PPE than the mini from a standards/regs point of view, despite use cases as an ascender in petzl literature. Its certed to this standard EN567. Not suitable as a single point PPE.
However the micro is tested to a LONG list of standards, CE EN 567, CE EN 12278, CE EN 12841 type B (hint hint), NFPA 2500 Technical Use Pulley and Rope grab, XF 494: FZL-Z-Q 8.5/11, XF 494: FZL-H-Q 8.5/11. 
You decide if one is more suitable, but from a function point of view as a mountaineering rope clamp, no difference.

FTFY

I have played with one. I own one. I think it’s a great device for hauling. Yes, it’s a triact opening—a sweep downwards with the outer bar, upwards with the inner bar and swing the plate open. I can do it easily one handed in one tiny fluid motion with my thumb. Petzl specifically markets it as easy to open even with gloves on. Those moving parts sit atop the plate and are vulnerable to interaction with rock.

I haven’t looked at the product videos for the Sulu, but the Pinch and the Taz were brought up as devices that can be opened without having to also open up a connector. On those devices—and admittedly I haven’t played with a Lov3–I’d note that the opening mechanisms sit flush or recessed to the device body. The Pinch cannot be opened under tension, and you can also block it with a carabiner should you choose. They seem categorically different to me in design and opening vulnerability than the minitrax.

Yes, the devices meet the same certifications and rope clamp functionality is the same. Of course you’re right that this is all personal choice and risk tolerance, and these are all off label uses we’re subjecting these devices to and climbing is inherently dangerous and and and and and. 

But if we just think about the design, form factor, and intended functionality of these devices, the minitrax stands separate from the rest in ways that IMO make it disadvantageous at best and unsuitable at worst for use as a trs device.

amarius wrote:

There is "harness breakage" thread in "Injuries", perfect place to hawk your swami belt held together by shoe laces

Please don't derail this thread: this is not about a harness or swami: it's about a device attachment that won't cross-load.  I have a possible solution for the OP.

But I'll check out the other thread, thanks.  Also, that lashing is a little too thick for shoelaces.

Slim Pickens wrote:

I have played with one. I own one. I think it’s a great device for hauling. Yes, it’s a triact opening—a sweep downwards with the outer bar, upwards with the inner bar and swing the plate open. I can do it easily one handed in one tiny fluid motion with my thumb. Petzl specifically markets it as easy to open even with gloves on. Those moving parts sit atop the plate and are vulnerable to interaction with rock.

I guess what I'm getting at, do you trust 3 stage locking carabiners? I can open these with one hand easily, gloved or no glove, but trust them with my life for work and play multiple times a week.
If you do, why would a 3 stage mechanism on the Mini be a deal breaker? Especially if you are running 2 device set up.
One of the certs for the Mini (EN 12841 B)is the cert for fall arrest device that can help you ascend and/or descend. So is certified as more suited for the task than the micro from regulating bodies and petzl (since they sought those certs for the mini)

I haven’t looked at the product videos for the Sulu, but the Pinch and the Taz were brought up as devices that can be opened without having to also open up a connector. On those devices—and admittedly I haven’t played with a Lov3–I’d note that the opening mechanisms sit flush or recessed to the device body. The Pinch cannot be opened under tension, and you can also block it with a carabiner should you choose. They seem categorically different to me in design and opening vulnerability than the minitrax.

fair enough take, just very much in disagreement that the mini is somehow more vulnerable to opening than 2 stage devices. In the context of TRS, your device is not always under load.

Yes, the devices meet the same certifications and rope clamp functionality is the same. Of course you’re right that this is all personal choice and risk tolerance, and these are all off label uses we’re subjecting these devices to and climbing is inherently dangerous and and and and and. 

But if we just think about the design, form factor, and intended functionality of these devices, the minitrax stands separate from the rest in ways that IMO make it disadvantageous at best and unsuitable at worst for use as a trs device.

I point to the certs again for the mini, and it being certed as suitable for fall arrest. The micro is not.
So just of the opposite stance on that front, with the certs in support. The whole advantage is the fact I can open it without removing the carabiner, that's why I personally love it. über quick change overs... But I trust that 3 stage fully.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, onto the carabiner discussion and cross loading.
(Ignore the fact its a micro trax in the pic below, I do not have the mini trax with me. As well, ignore the little green tether and the SMD, did not want to take that apart for an example photo.)

Another option for the MINI - You can take a 30cm sling and girth to your belay loop, tie in points, ring open, whatever, and then girth it to your MINI (or visa-vera). Since it has the swinging side plate you can actually load the rope in and out in this kind of set up. I think it obvious in this picture why the micro would not be functional with this approach!
Cheers y'all.

Mike Gibson wrote:

The biner plus belay loop give the device about a foot of free range to flop up and down.  That is bad, so to prevent that you have to restrain the device with a shoulder harness which sucks.  Ideally, I want the device to be attached to the harness so it can't move at all.  Noel Z provides a real solution below, where the device is tied directly to the harness using the hard points - not belay loop.

You answer your own question….. just put whatever biner you want through both hard points lol

This is probably not much liked from someone not very active. But reading this ...

Mr Rogers wrote:

One of the certs for the Mini (EN 12841 B)is the cert for fall arrest device that can help you ascend and/or descend. 

I point to the certs again for the mini, and it being certed as suitable for fall arrest. 

These two statements are (dangerously) wrong.

EN 12841 describes fall protection equipment ("rope adjustment devices") used in rope access systems. It is not a standard for fall arrest in general.

Type A is in fact a guided type fall arrester ("backup device") for the safety line.

The mini traxion is certified to EN 12841 Type B. An ascending device for the working line. This is essentially the industrial form of an ascender. And while it is true that, contrary to EN 567 (mountaineering rope clamps), EN 12841 Type B contains a dynamic test (different to the Type A fall arrest test), the mini traxion is definitely not certified as, not marketed as and not suitable for fall arrest.

I'm not saying YGD if you "fall" on a mini traxion e.g. in a TRS setting. But saying it's "certified as suitable for fall arrest" when you just misunderstood the standard is not right.

To quote Petzl's technical notice, page 5:
"The MINI TRAXION is not suitable for use in a fall-arrest system."

So is certified as more suited for the task than the micro from regulating bodies and petzl (since they sought those certs for the mini).

This, as well, is not entirely true as also the micro traxion complies with EN 12841 Type B requirements:
https://www.petzl.com/US/en/Professional/Conformity-to-the-requirements-of-the-EN-12841-B-and-EN-12278-standards-

Sorry for the hijack. But personally I think, if one is not 100 % sure, one should refrain from putting statements like "officially certified for" on a public forum.

m1er 1er wrote:

This is probably not much liked from someone not very active. But reading this ...

These two statements are (dangerously) wrong.

EN 12841 describes fall protection equipment ("rope adjustment devices") used in rope access systems. It is not a standard for fall arrest in general.

Type A is in fact a guided type fall arrester ("backup device") for the safety line.

The mini traxion is certified to EN 12841 Type B. An ascending device for the working line. This is essentially the industrial form of an ascender. And while it is true that, contrary to EN 567 (mountaineering rope clamps), EN 12841 Type B contains a dynamic test (different to the Type A fall arrest test), the mini traxion is definitely not certified as, not marketed as and not suitable for fall arrest.

I'm not saying YGD if you "fall" on a mini traxion e.g. in a TRS setting. But saying it's "certified as suitable for fall arrest" when you just misunderstood the standard is not right.

To quote Petzl's technical notice, page 5:
"The MINI TRAXION is not suitable for use in a fall-arrest system."

This, as well, is not entirely true as also the micro traxion complies with EN 12841 Type B requirements:
https://www.petzl.com/US/en/Professional/Conformity-to-the-requirements-of-the-EN-12841-B-and-EN-12278-standards-

Sorry for the hijack. But personally I think, if one is not 100 % sure, one should refrain from putting statements like "officially certified for" on a public forum.

I absolutely read the cert incorrect, and missed the separation of the fall arrest/ascender sections in EN12841 when I read it. I stand corrected, and appreciate the call out.

The tech tips article stating the why it is not 12841 B marked is something I have missed in my digging/and research. Thanks and personal reminder to not talk in absolutes when nuance is abundant in most certs and thier application.

Mike Gibson wrote:

Close, except for item 4.  I don't want the device to have the ability to flop around so much.  For soloing this requires a shoulder harness or putting a noose around your neck to restrain motion - both of which suck.

The clepsydra S is just about as small as any locking carabiner. What smaller connectors do you have in mind? I don't think you can do better if you want to use a carabiner, not some more exotic connector like a quicklink.