Alpine clubs¹ and other associations, such as KLEVER e.V. and manufacturers have undergone a paradigm shift regarding dynamic belay devices. This shift was triggered by a controversial discussion in the specialist trade publication “bergundsteigen” about the reliability of tubers and other dynamic belay devices.² Subsequent to these publications, the DAV Safety Commission and EDELRID have conducted³ various tests to clarify the situation.
It was shown that belaying with a tuber – in particular at climbing walls – involves a significantly greater risk than when using devices with assisted braking. Tubes offer no safety reserve, should the braking hand principle be neglected or if the device is not held in the correct position, due to inattention. This aspect of tubers is even more problematic if there is a large weight difference between belayer and climber or should the belayer have less hand strength and / or little experience in holding a fall.⁴
Both the scientific consensus and development of modern belay devices has moved clearly away from dynamic devices to braking or assisted braking devices (also known as autotubes).⁴
In response to these developments, EDELRID has introduced the Jul² belay device to the market.
We have altered the Jul²’s geometry so that it brakes reliably when using ropes with a diameter from 8,9 to 11,0 mm and so that falls can be held with minimal hand strength. The new version of the Jul² will also have a slightly different appearance.
¹ cf. The DAV recommends the “scientific consensus” of the OeAV, Nov 2014
² cf. “bergundsteigen” issue no. 3/13 “Wie sind wir da nur reingeraten” (How did we blunder into this) and issue no. 2/14 “Sicherungstechnik Teil 1 & 2”(Belay technique part 1 & 2), both articles by Thomas Lammel
³ cf. “bergundsteigen” issue no. 3/14 „Sind Tuber noch akzeptabel?“ (Are tubers still acceptable?) by Chris Semmel and Florian Hellberg
⁴ See above