Tuber (Tubular belay device): Difference between revisions

Line 137:

With non-assisted belay devices, the brake hand is the single point of failure. If the rope is released, a fall will not be slowed-down. While this carries inherent risk (if you let go, you let go), many climbers value these devices because they provide clear, immediate feedback on correct technique which helps to reinforce good habits. Also feeding the slack is except few cases smoother than with assisted-breaking devices.

Assisted belay devices, on the other hand, offer an additional layer of security, as the device itself can often stop a fall even if the break hand fails. This can reduce the likelihood of accidents. At the same time, the added security may also allow incorrect handling to go unnoticed and, over time, weaken safe habits as seen even among experienced users.<ref - ~~french~~>

Assisted belay devices, on the other hand, offer an additional layer of security, as the device itself can often stop a fall even if the break hand fails. This can reduce the likelihood of accidents. At the same time, the added security may also allow incorrect handling to go unnoticed and, over time, weaken safe habits as seen even among experienced users.<ref name=grigri_coach>{{Cite AV media | author=Hard is Easy | date=2 March 2025 | title=Coach Nearly Kills Pro Climber – GriGri Incident Analysis | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBGkKqLhM8Y | publisher=Hard is Easy | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref>

Studies by the German Alpine Club (DAV) in 2016 indicated more reported accidents with non-assisted tubular devices than with assisted devices, though most accidents were still traced back to incorrect use (burned hands).<ref> Following these findings, gyms and clubs in Germany and the Netherlands began to strongly recommend assisted belay devices, or even banned the non-assisted ones. Yet, a ~~follow-up~~ study ~~the next~~ year showed ~~no substantial differences between the devices~~.<ref> This might ~~suggest~~ that user experience and handling technique may matter more than the device type. Affordability may also play a role, as non-assisted devices might have been chosen by newcomers as a starter option. As newcomers are less experienced, it is therefore reasonable to expect that they have a higher accident risk.

Studies by the German Alpine Club (DAV) in 2016 once again indicated more reported accidents with non-assisted tubular devices than with assisted devices, though most accidents were still traced back to incorrect use (burned hands).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallen-unfallstatistik-2016.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2016 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=September 22, 2017 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> Following these findings, gyms and clubs in Germany and the Netherlands began to strongly recommend assisted belay devices, or even banned the non-assisted ones. Yet, for instance a study conducted in 2019 year showed that Megajul is statistically more dangerous than a tubular device.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallenunfallstatistik-2019.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2019 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=November 5, 2020 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> This was obviously caused by a very small sample size of accidents. However, this might illustrate that user experience and handling technique may matter more than the device type. Affordability may also play a role, as non-assisted devices might have been chosen by newcomers as a starter option. As newcomers are less experienced, it is therefore reasonable to expect that they have a higher accident risk. Also in the same study, it has been shown that during bouldering there is approximately 10 times higher chance of an accident needing an ambulance when compared to a climbing hall, showing climbing is a generally safer option.

Different alpine clubs highlight different aspects. For instance the education commission of the Czech Alpine Club (ČHS)~~<ref>~~, highlights non-assisted devices for the way they build good habits, yet at the same time recommends assisted devices for youth and newcomers.

Different alpine clubs highlight different aspects. For instance the education commission of the Czech Alpine Club (ČHS)REF, highlights non-assisted devices for the way they build good habits, yet at the same time recommends assisted devices for youth and newcomers.

There are reported severe accidents both for non-assisted<ref> and assisted belay ~~devices~~.<ref> However, most of the accidents occur not while belaying, but during abseiling.~~<ref>~~ For this reason, good technique, clear communication and training at a real conditions (fatigue resistance) remain the most critical safety priorities, regardless of device. Ultimately, the choice of belay device is best made consciously and in agreement between belayer and climber—both of whom carry the most imminent consequences of that choice.

There are reported severe accidents both for letting go non-assisted belay device<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.climbing.com/skills/climbing-accident-rockfall-lost-belay/ | title=A Series Of Unfortunate Events—A Fortunate Groundfall Landing | publisher=Outside Interactive, Inc. | first1=Kevin | last1=Corrigan | website=Climbing.com | access-date=31 August 2025 | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230209015940/https://www.climbing.com/skills/climbing-accident-rockfall-lost-belay/ | archive-date=9 February 2023}}</ref> and for reckless handling of an assisted belay device.<ref name=grigri_coach/> However, most of the accidents occur not while belaying, but during abseiling.REF For this reason, good technique, clear communication and training at a real conditions (fatigue resistance) remain the most critical safety priorities, regardless of device. Ultimately, the choice of belay device is best made consciously and in agreement between belayer and climber—both of whom carry the most imminent consequences of that choice.

</translate>

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 With non-assisted belay devices, the brake hand is the single point of failure. If the rope is released, a fall will not be slowed-down. While this carries inherent risk (if you let go, you let go), many climbers value these devices because they provide clear, immediate feedback on correct technique which helps to reinforce good habits. Also feeding the slack is except few cases smoother than with assisted-breaking devices.
-Assisted belay devices, on the other hand, offer an additional layer of security, as the device itself can often stop a fall even if the break hand fails. This can reduce the likelihood of accidents. At the same time, the added security may also allow incorrect handling to go unnoticed and, over time, weaken safe habits as seen even among experienced users.<ref - french>
+Assisted belay devices, on the other hand, offer an additional layer of security, as the device itself can often stop a fall even if the break hand fails. This can reduce the likelihood of accidents. At the same time, the added security may also allow incorrect handling to go unnoticed and, over time, weaken safe habits as seen even among experienced users.<ref name=grigri_coach>{{Cite AV media | author=Hard is Easy | date=2 March 2025 | title=Coach Nearly Kills Pro Climber – GriGri Incident Analysis | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBGkKqLhM8Y | publisher=Hard is Easy | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref>
-Studies by the German Alpine Club (DAV) in 2016 indicated more reported accidents with non-assisted tubular devices than with assisted devices, though most accidents were still traced back to incorrect use (burned hands).<ref> Following these findings, gyms and clubs in Germany and the Netherlands began to strongly recommend assisted belay devices, or even banned the non-assisted ones. Yet, a follow-up study the next year showed no substantial differences between the devices.<ref> This might suggest that user experience and handling technique may matter more than the device type. Affordability may also play a role, as non-assisted devices might have been chosen by newcomers as a starter option. As newcomers are less experienced, it is therefore reasonable to expect that they have a higher accident risk.
+Studies by the German Alpine Club (DAV) in 2016 once again indicated more reported accidents with non-assisted tubular devices than with assisted devices, though most accidents were still traced back to incorrect use (burned hands).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallen-unfallstatistik-2016.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2016 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=September 22, 2017 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> Following these findings, gyms and clubs in Germany and the Netherlands began to strongly recommend assisted belay devices, or even banned the non-assisted ones. Yet, for instance a study conducted in 2019 year showed that Megajul is statistically more dangerous than a tubular device.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallenunfallstatistik-2019.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2019 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=November 5, 2020 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> This was obviously caused by a very small sample size of accidents. However, this might illustrate that user experience and handling technique may matter more than the device type. Affordability may also play a role, as non-assisted devices might have been chosen by newcomers as a starter option. As newcomers are less experienced, it is therefore reasonable to expect that they have a higher accident risk. Also in the same study, it has been shown that during bouldering there is approximately 10 times higher chance of an accident needing an ambulance when compared to a climbing hall, showing climbing is a generally safer option.
-Different alpine clubs highlight different aspects. For instance the education commission of the Czech Alpine Club (ČHS)<ref>, highlights non-assisted devices for the way they build good habits, yet at the same time recommends assisted devices for youth and newcomers.
+Different alpine clubs highlight different aspects. For instance the education commission of the Czech Alpine Club (ČHS)REF, highlights non-assisted devices for the way they build good habits, yet at the same time recommends assisted devices for youth and newcomers.
-There are reported severe accidents both for non-assisted<ref> and assisted belay devices.<ref> However, most of the accidents occur not while belaying, but during abseiling.<ref> For this reason, good technique, clear communication and training at a real conditions (fatigue resistance) remain the most critical safety priorities, regardless of device. Ultimately, the choice of belay device is best made consciously and in agreement between belayer and climber—both of whom carry the most imminent consequences of that choice.
+There are reported severe accidents both for letting go non-assisted belay device<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.climbing.com/skills/climbing-accident-rockfall-lost-belay/ | title=A Series Of Unfortunate Events—A Fortunate Groundfall Landing | publisher=Outside Interactive, Inc. | first1=Kevin | last1=Corrigan | website=Climbing.com | access-date=31 August 2025 | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230209015940/https://www.climbing.com/skills/climbing-accident-rockfall-lost-belay/ | archive-date=9 February 2023}}</ref> and for reckless handling of an assisted belay device.<ref name=grigri_coach/> However, most of the accidents occur not while belaying, but during abseiling.REF For this reason, good technique, clear communication and training at a real conditions (fatigue resistance) remain the most critical safety priorities, regardless of device. Ultimately, the choice of belay device is best made consciously and in agreement between belayer and climber—both of whom carry the most imminent consequences of that choice.
 </translate>