It looks like the cam can fully close. I think any device in which the cam can fully close to the other side will de-sheath a rope in a hard fall. If you look at a grigri, with the cam fully rotated the cam does not come in other edge of the grigri. That is how petzl prevents de-sheathing of the rope. I heard the very 1st runs of grigris could de-sheath a rope because the cam rotation was not locked. Similarly the uascent and camp lift (I think) have the cam bar what will meet with the cams stop, the ushba device has an ovalized cam bar that is supposed to prevent de-sheathing of the device. I would be very reluctant to use a device for LRS or even lead belay that allows the cam to rotate all the way to the other side.
Hi Pat! You are a master in design! I learn something here! Thank you. Hope all is well on your end of the world! The Fuse would fully close but a small tweak in the shape of the cam does not allow for it to close fully. But the gap is too small to let slipping happen and the grey cam has some roughess to it that damages the sheath just a little. So I think the compound effect of super small gap and roughess to the grey cam makes the device desheath the rope. Note that there is not much deviation of the rope also. The grigri has the rope make a 180 (?) before it pinches it. The Fuse has the rope go through almost in a straight line... So not much added friction and 100% pinching! Makes sense?
@@YannCamusBlissClimbing I wish it would too, dynamic ropes over 10mm aren't that popular. Still it's certified with an absorber too, so maybe these devices are made with static ropes in mind - I don't know really, I doubt I've seen this mentioned in any documentation. Your test shows what would happen in a non-ideal scenario, but I think this happens quite a lot, so it's extremely useful!
For me this is not a valid test, as for this device is mandatory the combination with an appropriate DEFUSER for shock absortion. Its also to be used on ropes from 10 to 12mm. So the test was completely wrong, simulating something that it was not designed to.
I must say, as rope solo rock climbers, we always use our gear “wrong”. I had to do this test for this community… Look here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2152Zhs-8yg.html
IMO a device that cannot safely handle FF2 can still be an adequate LRS device. It isn't hard to avoid FF2 even in a multipitch scenario with a few simple tricks up your sleeve. The most important one is that in a multipitch scenario where you have a runout above the anchor where you think a fall is a realistic possibility it's best to build your anchor at the top of the pitch, then continue up the next pitch on the runout and once you get pro in THEN lower back down to your anchor. With simple tricks like thIs it's trivial to avoid the possibility of FF2. I think it would be cool to see the device used in low factor falls, as IMO it might be an acceptable LRS device just with this large but easily manageable caveat, just like the Revo.
I fully understand what you mean. The “Pluss clip” is a good way to avoid any FF2. BUT I want to point out the difference between the fall factor (fall length / rope length) and effective fall factor (fall length / rope length actually absorbing the impact). You can think of each part of the rope absorbing with a certain efficiency. The rope length right near the anchor does not participate fully because of the friction in the system. So if someone clips 2 pieces around a roof and creates a ton of slack, the FF might be of 0.5 but the effective FF might easily be above 1. The Fuse did not manage the FF1 and in my opinion this is the minimum a LRS device should handle. Good discussion subject!!
@@RickyHarline Yes... You have to watch the video again! I have added timestamps to get you to the FF1 easy. Sometimes you want something so much that you are ready to skip information that contradicts the reality you want... ;-)
@@YannCamusBlissClimbing I watched it in full, for some reason I thought that was a FF2 and not a FF1. That's what I get for watching it while I'm drinking my coffee... Sometimes I need that coffee to fully process the information! =P
How well do these fall arrest systems work a pitches roof? I’ve purchased the rope goblin, and wanted to purchase the Petzl ASAP but didn’t wanna spend money on it if it did not work? Would you recommend one that self trail while walking on a roof with a mild pitch?
@@YannCamusBlissClimbing I’m hooked in to an anchor point that is the n the top of the roof, my rope goes to the edge of the roof. I clip the rope goblin on the lead line and then my lanyard to goblin. As I move up and down the roof it’s supposed to self trail but I find my self having manually unlock and move it instead of it self trailing. If there’s a way I can send you a video
The easy move cut the sheath at 5.91kN in a static test on a Mammut 9.8mm rope. I think there would be more rope carnage in this type of test. The Camnal "Rocker" (copy of the ISC) needed 7.5kN to get only half of the sheath cut. Much more promising! Should handle the FF1. I doubt it handles the FF2...
@@YannCamusBlissClimbing in combination with a soloist or mudo, the easymove would only have to act as a third hand in case of falling upside down. What do you think ?
Disappointing. I saw a comparison of toothed Petzl Asap and the good ole Shunt. One de-sheeted the rope kept sliding on the core for a meter and and the other was just sliding for meter and absorbing the fall to a smooth stop. Guess which one I keep using on the second rope for rope access? Of course the Shunt. I use 10,5 or 11mm static ropes. In fact a piece of double dynamic rope would be a great absorber to connect it to. I dont care what the industry (lobby) says. Just show me the numbers, the tests, and I'll make a decision
My Fuse is a bit deformed post testing. Don’t remember exactly what is the problem. The Fuse is probably ok for one test whatever the test but cannot endure “infinite testing”. At some point it will get damaged. Makes sense?
