Microtraxion vs Roll’nLock: A Tale of Two Top Rope Solo Back-Up Devices

This post is for informational purposes only and is the result of my personal experiences. YMMV.

I thought I’d use the time to write this up while the weather is not cooperating for being out on the rock. Snow, ice, freezing rain and mud are not my cuppa tea! Hat’s off to all you folks who thrive on those conditions!

First some general info re the MT and R'nL. There is no significant difference in size/weight or feed on the rope. Both use a cam to lock on the rope against the pulley/bushing but they differ as to how they initiate the lock-up. The R’nL has sharp “V” cutout with ribs to grab the rope and initiate the pinching of the cam against the bushing, while the MT uses conical teeth to grab the rope to initiate the lock-up of the cam against the pulley. The MT has a sealed bearing inside the pulley. The R’nL just has a bushing inside the smaller diameter pulley which is integrated into the cam lobe. Both are rated with specs that are adequate for TRS as a primary or back-up device. When loaded onto a rope, the MT cam is completely enclosed inside the device while the cam on the R'nL sticks out below (a bit of a safety concern if the R'nL is used as a primary device above another device).

In my TRS rigs, I always use a MT or R'nL as a backup. Early on I found it a hassle to take either one off the rope to rap. I was seeking to optimize my system so I didn’t have to take the back-up off at the top of the route when doing laps. Both devices have lock-out modes so they can be held open and stay attached on the rope while sliding freely down the rope when rapping. The R’nL’s lock-out feature is extremely positive and hands free once locked out, though it often takes two hands to do that. (I previously devised a finger loop to allow one-handed operation for that: https://sicgrips.blogspot.com/.../rollnlock-as-tr-solo... )

The MT’s lock-out feature on the other hand, is finicky and less reliable in my experience. With the MT I’ve randomly experienced both locking-open and locking-on the rope when not wanted. (Could this be why Petzl removed the feature in the new Nano??? ) This could be a result of the size and condition of the ropes I was using but I was never able to isolate the issue. When rapping, it’s annoying to come to an abrupt and sudden stop when it unwontedly locks-on and bites down on the rope. Conversely, it is down right dangerous if it happens to lock-open when climbing and you weight the rope or take a “fall” and your primary device fails. Not likely but could be possible.

CAUTION: Any device that can be locked open is subject to user error by forgetting to lock it on the rope before climbing/after rapping. ALWAYS DOUBLE CHECK!

A solution for the MT's unpredictability, is to grind off the lock-out nub. Problem solved - at least for safer climbing. However, then the device can’t be locked-open for rapping and I'm forced to remove it from the rope. My solution is to add a simple thumb loop shown below. By this addition I insert thumb and pull up which manually opens the cam while grabbing the rope between the rappel device and the MT when rapping. This positions the hand in the perfect spot for tensioning the rope while rapping with a Lov2, Vergo, or GG or what-have-you. However, this is a manual operation and it is only unlocked while you’re holding it open with the thumb loop. This gives the added benefit of serving as a back-up (like an auto-block would) during the rappel.

The mod involves adding a thumb loop of accessory cord. I used 1.5 mm accessory to keep the knots as small as possible and out of the way. One end is fed down through the molded in hole in the plastic housing that is intended for an optional keeper cord (older MTs don't have this). A simple overhand knot neatly tucks out of the way in the knot pocket in the housing. The other end of the cord is fed through the hole at the end of the of the toothed cam. This can be secured simply with an over-hand knot that acts as a stopper knot like the other end. However, I’ve chosen to use a Scaffold knot which centers it and keeps it out of the way on the backside of the cam. It took me a bit of experimenting to get the loop exactly the right length for my hand, trying to keep it as small as possible but still be able to easily slip my thumb in and out and be able to grab the free rope strand.

For me, the beauty of this mod is when using it as a backup for the Lov2 or Vergo, at the top of route; whenever I “fall”; or, any place I want to work a move; I simply hang on the primary device, insert thumb and pull up on the quick release loop on the MT, and descend using the Lov2 or Vergo.

Note: the fatter the rope the more attention is needed to keep the cam open and teeth out of the way. I use it on 9.4 - 9.9 ropes.

BONUS!

The following mod is only helpful if using the MT as both a primary and secondary (back-up) device. If it is only used as a back-up device, then the basic thumb-loop above is adequate. If it is only used as a primary device, then then just a tow loop is necessary: 

By tying an extra overhand loop off the main thumb loop, the MT can also be used as a primary device held vertically by a necklace/sling. This extra loop provides a connection point that isolates it from the MT's cam and prevents it from opening in the event of a weird fall. The main thumb loop should never be used as a connection point to hold vertically! It might seem simpler to not have a separate tow loop, but in a fall backwards/away from the device, the thumb loop-sling connection can open the cam on the MT. 

The proportion of the thumb loop's legs to each other are critical. 'Y' should always be 2-4 times as long as 'X'. This insures that when it is connected to a sling/harness as the primary device, held vertically, and towed up the rope - the 'Y' portion of the thumb loop will be slack and the weight of the device/rope friction is totally held by the 'X' leg. If 'Y's not slack, there is the possibility that it will open the cam when towed up the rope or during or during a "fall" where the climber falls out way from the device. However the other extreme should be avoided also: 'Y' should not be too long in relation to 'X' as to create a huge loop that could catch on something. The second photo below shows an ideal amount of slack when connected as a primary device. In the video below, the ratio of 'X' to 'Y' is a little too great and creates too big a thumb loop when when connected as a primary device. Hope this all makes sense. If not you can respond below. 

The extra connection loop isolates it from opening the cam. It also makes it easier to connect and disconnect because nothing has to be fed through the MT 'biner hole to connect to the necklace/sling. The MT can be opened and closed without having to remove the connection point (cord) like other setups. It took a bit of experimenting with the size and relative locations of the loops to optimize them for my set-up.

This video clip shows how the double loop can be used either as a connection point to be used as a primary device, or as a quick release for rapping when used as a back-up device. The thumb loop also aids in opening the toothed cam after a fall or weighting the rope by inserting thumb and pulling up. In order to do this, the rope needs to be tensioned below the MT or it needs to be un-weighted. (Also note as stated above that in this example the leg ratio of 'Y' to 'X' is  little too great. The overhand knot tow loop should be re-tied to reduce that ratio. This is also the beauty of this set-up, in that it is easy to re-tie the overhand loop to adjust the relative leg lengths.)

BACK TO THE R’NL

Nowadays, if I’m using it as my backup, I’ve found an easy and comfortable way to grab the device and open the cam while grabbing the rope just ahead of the device. See photo. This allows me to keep the cam open and grab the rope at the same time. I grab the R’nL cam with the lower part of my hand and pivot the cam up using my lower part of my hand and fingers to keep it open and wrapping my hand around the rope and device together. Simple to do and I don’t have to use the finger/thumb loop; and, the cam is still active should my hand come of the rope while rappelling so it would act like an auto-block. Plus, I still have the option to lock the R'nL open if I desire.

Sooo, bottom line: Both do their job well. Both are suited to be either a primary or a secondary/back-up TRS device. Both devices can easily be used in series with each other for a TRS rig: one as primary, the other as secondary. The drawback being that a GG, ATC, or some such rappel device has to be added in order to rap (unless using a Lov Taz2 or a Vergo). Neither are rated as a primary device for LRSing, but both can serve as a cache loop manager and then be used as a primary or back-up for TRSing back to the anchors.

SUMMARY

MT

Positives: Pivots slightly less when locking up; Better/more efficient for hauling or any time there is a significant bend in the rope with weight on it (because of bearings in the pulley); it’s slightly more compact; As a TRS primary device with the double loop mod, it’s easy to connect/disconnect to chest sling/necklace. With thumb loop (and tab removed), it’s always safely locked on rope.

Negatives: If the lock-out tab is not removed, it is finicky and can be a PITA when rapping and dangerous if it locks open un-noticed; slightly more friction with fatter ropes/‘biners when ascending (though not significant); just slightly harder to remove from rope once it’s weighted (thumb loop alleviates that); no easy way to manually hold open while rapping (without thumb-loop) if you’ve ground the tab off. Needs modifying to be optimal IMO (or buy a new Nano that doesn't have the lock-out tab).

R’NL

Positives: Positive hands-free lock-out if needed; easy to manually hold open device while rapping without a thumb/finger loop; slightly less friction when used as a primary device; half the cost of the MT; little to no possibility of it unwontedly locking open

Negatives: Pivots a slightly more when locking up because of length of device; a bit of a hassle (even with finger loop) to lock open the cam because the cam must be rotated significantly. Not the best if you’re going to do a lot of hauling. The external location of the cam outside the housing is a safety concern when using as a primary TRS device above another device.

SO THEN…

Question: which one is better as a back-up?

Answer: It depends - they both have have positives and negatives. If your leaving it on the rope when rapping and want it to be hands-free, then the R’nL is the answer. If you’ve ground the tab off the MT, then using the thumb loop and manually hold it open while rapping is super slick. If you don’t have either device, pick the one that has the most positive features for your intended uses.

Question: Should you switch from one to the other?

Answer: Probably not, unless one of the methods for keeping it open while rapping has a significant advantage for you or unless you plan on doing a lot of hauling also, then, defiitely the MT would be better.

Update: There have been recent claims that the R’nL will not lock up if twists on the rope. I think this would be more of a concern if using the RnL as a primary device. Test and use at your own risk. I’ve mainly used it as a back up and in the lower position the top device should keep it from twisting on the rope. If this is a concern to you, by all means use the MicroTrax.

Competition / Brotherhood Knot

 ==================

First off, I’m not trying to convince anyone - I’m just putting this out there for anyone interested. Most people are content using whatever knot they’ve always been using. However, since learning of the Competition Knot, I’ve found that it meets my needs most of the time and I've used it off and on for the last 5 years. Some Europeans have been using it for decades. I assume it got it’s name from being used for competition climbing and the likelihood of whipping on it and not impossibly cinching up, though I haven’t confirmed that.

How to tie it: 

https://www.krstendelap.com/tech-tips/brotherhood-knot

https://youtu.be/Au8KiUS4RCc   

https://youtu.be/QOHKc4BSMOA (erroneously called a "Ring Bend" in this video)

A simple description - based on how it’s tied is an "overhand looped follow-through” - i.e. the exit strand circles around and enters the same point as the original strand and follows it back around for ‘another lap’.

It has alternately been called the Brotherhood Knot (AMGA manual), It is related to, and has erroneously been identified as a Ring Bend/Water Knot, and Offset Overhand. It’s NOT an overhand retrace or overhand on a bight, in which the exit strand retraces the original strand back through in the opposite direction and both exit the knot on the same side.  Like these and many other knots (including the EDK and Overhand on a Bight), it is based on the basic geometry of the Overhand Knot

  

One of the beauties of the competition knot is that it can only constrict so much in a fall because it is pulling against itself, pulling two of the constricting bights in opposite directions, keeping it somewhat “open” so that it’s easier to untie. Untying it is similar to untying a Figure-8 by flipping two bights to loosen it.

Positives

• uses less rope
• less bulk
• faster to tie (once you know how)
• similar to figure-8 in that no back-up knot is needed (bowline requires a backup knot)
• easy to untie but will not untie by itself if there is no pressure on it
• easy to inspect once you (or your partner) becomes use to it
• It’s helpful as ropes dimeters grow smaller and knots constrict tighter
• especially good when doing laps or working a section of a route because of constant whipping/hanging/rapping which causes knots to constrict more over time

Negatives 

• It is little known so it makes people wary. People are afraid of the unknown (sometimes with good reason). 
• Not as easy to untie as a Bowline after whipping but better than a Figure-8
• Un-informed partners can’t double check you (but remember our context here is rope soloing :-)
• May not be quite as strong as other tie-in knots, but when is the last time you heard of a rope breaking at the knot from a fall? Your bod will break before the knot does!
• If they see you using it in a gym, they will probably call you out.

Finally, like most knots, it needs to be dressed properly “... tied neatly, with no crossed strands and adequate tail” and tuck extra tail back through belay loop to keep out of the way.

To check knot, you need to do the 2, 2, 2, 2 check with one of the loops strands and the live rope pulling in opposite directions

Note: If you’re geometrically/spatially/or knot challenged, or paranoid re the veracity and appropriateness of this knot...DO NOT USE IT!

YMMV

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional background info: 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/ring_knot-671974#main

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/107108289/ring-bend-as-tie-in-knot

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/111814291/how-do-you-tie-in?page=2 

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/3016274/Tying-in-with-an-Overhand-Follow-Through

Roll'nLock as TR-solo Back-Up Device

The Roll’nLock is one of the best pieces of kit IMO. It can be used as a primary device, but it’s use as a secondary backup device is where it really shines. While most people use the Microtrax as a back-up according to my recent survey, I feel that the RnL has one main advantage. While both devices run freely on the rope; both lock-up immediately because of the teeth/ribs; and both have the ability to be locked open when you’re ready to rap so that it will freely run down the rope....the Microtrax has a nasty flaw IMO.


It has the habit of slipping from the lock-open position to locking on the rope in the middle of a rap causing you to come to an abrupt halt. Jarring to say the least and a PITA. You then have to unweight the device (which may take some doing if you’re on a overhung pitch), lock it open again and resume your rap. This can happen multiple times on a single rap and is just a big CF. The solution when using a Microtrax for backup is to completely remove the device from the rope then put it back on for climbing. To me this just interrupts the whole flow of TRSing and introduces the possibility of dropping it at the top of the pitch. (As a side note I’ve also had the Microtrax unexpectedly go from being locked on the rope to a lock-open position also - potentially dangerous. This was after checking and making sure that it was locked on the rope. That’s why some people file/grind off the lock-open tab). With the RnL I’ve never had either of these situations happen.


The lock-open mode of the RnL is much more positive and has never slipped back into the lock-on-rope mode while rapping. Depending upon one’s setup, that means that at the top of the route (or anywhere in-between) it’s simple to hang on the primary device, lock open the RnL and rap. What could be easier? Well actually there is one way to make it easier. Normally locking it open is a two-handed operation. With the addition of a finger loop pull-cord it is a much more manageable one-handed operation.


A fellow TRSer turned me on to the idea from the following video (https://youtu.be/At3m_DDP2fA at the 7:32 mark). The solution in the video is kind of bulky and could get in the way. I’ve adapted the idea and attached the cord a bit differently and made it into an index finger loop. I used a 1.5mm diameter piece of accessory cord that is looped around the center post of the lock mechanism (see photo). It’s easiest to use a piece that’s several inches longer than what you’ll need to allow you to play around with what size of loop works best for you. I use a simple overhand knot that’s easy to undo and move to get the right sized loop. Hint: to make it as efficient as possible and keep it out of the way, make the loop as small as possible. Once you work out the best size for your hands/fingers, tighten knot, trim the ends short and burn them, then pull on the loop and the knot will tuck against the post out of the way. My experience is that it stays completely out of the way and doesn’t interfere with the action of the cam when climbing or rapping.


To lock-out the cam, insert index finger in the loop, press thumb against the pulley and pull out and up to rotate the cam ~90 deg. until the lock tab slips over the lock pin. To unlock. insert index finger, press thumb against pulley and pull up to release and allow cam to rotate back onto the rope.
For me, using the RnL an a backup to either the TAZ Lov2 or the Trango Vergo offers the most seamless TR climbing possible. Climb, hang on primary device, lock-open the RnL, and rap.






If the loop bothers you because you're afraid it might catch on something (I'm not), then you can alway pull the loop from the knotted end so that it becomes a knotted pull-cord.

Vergo for Top Rope Soloing

I’ll never forget about 15 years ago climbing in the Gunks and sitting on a belay ledge watching a young buck top-rope-soloing working on a 5.13 roof. He was constantly hucking off it with nothing but a Cinch. I’d hear this yell and then look up and see him go flying out into space. Because the route was so radically overhung he’d have to lower way back down past us to get back on the rock and then climb back up another 75’ to give it another go. I wasn't new to rope soloing - I’d been doing it for years - but I WAS totally freaked out to see that he was doing it without a backup - not even a knot (unless it was way down below where I could see). However I was also totally impressed that it was catching him every time and didn’t seem to be too much hassle managing the rope while climbing. That’s when I decided maybe I should give the device a try instead of using a GG. 

Long story short: I used it for a while and then got rid of it. I didn’t like it’s design and had difficulty in smoothly controlling the descent. Also, about the time I’d tried it, accident reports started cropping up on various climbing boards in relation to normal usage. Some claimed it was the design of the device, others claimed that it was user error. I’d also read and participated in a number of threads on RockClimbing.com and SuperTopo where Mal Daly (former Trango owner), was super emphatic about NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE using the Cinch for soloing of any kind. He said his comments were based on testing and experience. (Of course that’d probably be the response of any business owner in relation to using a device outside of its intended use and wanting to legally cover their butt.) 

Fast forward many years and Trango came out with the Vergo - similar to the Cinch but newly designed from the ground up. After several false starts and recalls, they finally got everything sorted out. I read about a couple of people who were using it for TRS but I immediately dismissed it because of my less than ideal experience with the Cinch. However I started thinking that I probably shouldn’t trash it without first hand info and experience. I started thinking that maybe the design changes had improved it and I should give it an in-depth look trying to not let my previous experience prejudice my view, 

So that’s the back story. 

For the last year+ I’ve been using the Taz Lov2 as my main TRS device and consider it the best all-in-one device available. So this review will compare it to that standard. 

Vergo manual

Additional info: Trango Blog

Specs - weight: 196gm (201gm actual); rope range: 8.9 - 10.7; cost $99; size: 100mm x 68mm x 33mm Materials: steel, aluminum, and plastic 

Design

The Vergo is similar in design to the Cinch and though Trango says that it has been totally redesigned from the ground up, the principles by how it operates are the same but it has been improved in several ways: the handle attachment point has been moved from the aluminum half to the steel half and has been lengthened; the geometry of the release action for lowering has been refined; the geometry of the rope path has been refined and narrowed to handle smaller diameter ropes; the pinch pin which was reported to wear quickly on the Cinch has been hardened to increase wear resistance; and the locking/pinching rope geometry of the pivoting halves has been modified. It is also slightly bigger and heavier overall. 

There are three main types of active all-in-one ABDs (assisted belay device) based on rope path: straight-through (Lov2/Faders SUM/Vergo) those where the rope wraps around a cam (Grigri/Eddy/Birdie/Lifeguard); and those that have the rope wrapping around a wheel (Revo/Silent Partner). It’s only the wheeled and straight through devices that can reduce feed resistance to a reasonable level for TRS in my opinion. The Vergo uses a semi-straight through rope path that has a sight dogleg in order to introduce a certain amount of friction which helps the device itself pivot on the ‘biner and both halves pivot in relation to each other and lock on the rope. 

The Vergo uses a unique design where both halves of the device freely pivot in relation to each other which allows the rope to be pinched between the pinch pin on the aluminum half, and the pinch plate on the steel half, to lock the rope when it is weighted. A very unique design. (The Lov2 use a rocker-arm inside the device to pinch and lock the rope.) Because both halves are pivoting in relation to each other it means the ‘biner can only be attached to one half (one side) of the device. Most other ABDs have the ‘biner connecting to both halves of the device which is inherently stronger. While the materials are sound, the design bothers my intuitive sense of design (see below). 

While I’m not an engineer, I have designed rock climbing equipment and these issues bother my design intuitions. However, I’m sure the Trango designers/engineers/testers have proven that the design and materials are strong enough and up to the task intended (lead belaying). However the quirky design and thinness of the materials creep me out a bit because I’m using it for an unintended purpose - top rope soloing. The stresses experienced during TRS in normal situation should be well below catching a lead fall. However, the orientation of the device in TRSing and lack of a hand holding the free end of the rope definitely are outside the scope of it’s design parameters. Having said that, after using it i’m comfortable with it based on my testing and experience. However, I would NEVER, EVER under any circumstances want to use this as a LRS device, period!!! 

Now onto the it’s actual use and how it compares to the Lov2 

Feeding 

Because of the dog-leg/kink (see photo) in the “straight-through” rope path, there is more resistance when it is being pulled up the rope than devices that have a true straight through path such as the Lov2 or Goblin. This dogleg in the rope path means that it needs to have a bit more weight on the bottom of the rope to start with. 

With the Lov2 I use a approach shoe or two clove hitched to the bottom of the rope. With the Vergo I needed both shoes a medium sized rock or two inside my shoes. However, it still feeds fairly well but I could sense a slight bit more drag on the rope while moving than with the Lov2. So while the device actually weighs half of what the Lov2 does, it feels a bit heavier while climbing because of the additional drag. I'm not talking about a huge difference though, and it certainly feeds better than any other ABD on the market. As the weight of the rope beneath the device increases as you climb, the feed resistance also increases. Feeding on low angle slab is also less than ideal and one is probably better off with a microtrax or Roll’nLock as the primary device for those types of routes. On the slab I ended up pulling rope on the first 30+’ until the route started getting vertical. This is because the weight of the shoes on the bottom of the rope are not “felt” by the Vergo because of the low-angle. 

Feed is an interplay between the size of the rope, the suppleness and how much weight is on the bottom. It takes a bit of experimentation to get these things right to maximize the feed.

Lock up 

Lock-up on the Vergo is fairly immediate. It has to pivot to lock like the Lov2 but because it’s a bit smaller, the pivot arc/distance is less than the Lov2. My estimate is it takes 2”-5” at most to lock up compared to the estimated 4-10” of the Lov2. Probably the only devices that lock quicker are the Microtrax and Roll’nlock because of their small size and the toothed/ribbed cam which initiates immediate engagement. Caution: forward falls, like on less than vertical slab, may not lock up because pressure on the rope/device doesn’t allow it to pivot and lock-up and your body pressing against the device will also hinder that. For it to lock, it needs a takes a straight down or a slightly outward fall. This is a characteristic of any straight through type device. However most falls are backwards/outwards away from wall so that shouldn’t be an issue. (And that’s also why you should always use a backup, right?!) 

Rapping 

Rapping is the function that lacks in many good TR devices (MicroTrax, Lift, Goblin, etc.) and is what sets apart many of the ABDs. The rapping function of the Vergo in general is pretty good and has been greatly improved over the Cinch due to the increase in handle size and device geometry changes. The sweet spot for control of rapping is fairly small like the Lov2 but i never felt like I was going to loose control of the decent and was able to fairly easily modulate the speed with one hand on the handle and other hand below on the rope. I think it’s just slightly smoother and easier to use for rapping than the Lov2 because the ergonomics are a bit better on the Vergo and the "sweet spot” might be ever so slightly greater. You still don’t want to yank the handle wide open, but then you don’t want to do that on any brake assisted belay device. With a bit of experience, it’s pretty easy to control though slightly more sensitive than a Grigri. I’d liken the Vergo to the steering sensitivity on a sports car versus a Grigri which would be more analogous to the steering on a normal car. I’m sure that going up or down in rope size from what I use (9.4/9.5) would affect these characteristics somewhat. 

Rope Size 

Trango says 8.9 to 10.7. I would say that is really stretching it and possibly an outright fabrication re the upper range limit. For regular belaying it might work since the rope is being pulled through the device. However in relation to TRS I tried various ropes at home to see how the feed would be. Using well used ropes in the 9.9 and 10.2 range - it was not pleasant because the narrow, dog-legged rope path. There was just too much friction. In fact for TRSing, with ropes larger than 9.6, I’m sure you’d end up having to pull rope a significant amount of the time, much like a Grigri, or end up having to put an inordinate amount of weight on the bottom of the rope. As mentioned under feed, supple ropes tend to feed better than stiffer ropes (ropes with a high percentage of sheath)

For testing I used a well used and slightly fuzzy BD 9.4 and aa fairly new Edelweiss Energy 9.5 Unicore. It seemed like the more flexible and used BD fed just slightly better. I personally would never use the Vergo with anything bigger than a 9.5 It would be interesting to try a rope in the 9.0-9.3 range and see how that worked. My guess is that it would feed even better. HOWEVER, if you have safety concerns using a small diameter rope for TRS, then I’d recommend that you not use the Vergo - the Lov2 would be a better choice. I’m totally comfortable using a rope in the 9.5 range making sure I’m not working a route over sharp edges, or if I am, taking the appropriate precautions. 

Down-Climbing 

Down climbing with the Vergo is really hit and miss…and probably mostly a miss. Since it’s not something I regularly do, I think it would need more investigation but my initial observation and experiences are not favorable. It tends to lock-up with any downward motion. To even approach being able to down-climb, I had to remove the backup device beneath it (used knots for a back-up) and I needed to be on a vertical route where I could slightly press my body against the vergo and rope. With any backward/outward movement, it locks. A smaller rope might aid in this but I haven’t tested that. 

The Lov2 fares slightly better because of the rope path through the device is totally straight and because of it being heavier. If down-climbing were an important function to me, I’d probably go with a Goblin or Revo. Both the Vergo and Lov2 leave much to be desired for this function. Having said that more investigation might yield a set-up/rope combo that would allow one to down-climb. 

Set-Up 

For the most efficient feed and minimum lock-up distance of the Vergo, it needs to be held upright in a vertical position with a necklace or chest strap. With other devices used for TRS, it is common to make the connection to the device via the ‘biner hole or to the ‘biner itself in order to hold it up. However on the Vergo this does not work well because it causes the device to hang at an angle that puts more kink in the rope path. In order to orient it for the straightest rope path through the device, I use a loop of 1.5 mm accessory cord slipped over the release handle and around the handle’s axle shaft housing. Anything with a larger diameter could get in the way of the rotation of the two halves of the device which is essential for the proper functioning. 

You could also use 5 lb.-10 lb. test monofilament fishing line which would be small enough in diameter to work well and also allow for it to break free from the necklace/harness at a given force in the event of a weird fall. 

After trying various looking ‘biners, I ended up liking the Edelrid Slider auto-locking ‘biner with a Petzl Tanga keepers sliced in half to act as rubber grommets. This keeps the Vergo centered on the ‘biner but still allows it to freely rotate. This is the same setup that I use with the Lov2. A small rated maillon also works.

Backing-up the Vergo Backing-up the Vergo

For a back up, I started off using a minitrax. The feed worked well but multiple times after locking it open for rapping, it slipped back to the unlocked position then jammed suddenly on the rope and up against the Vergo. When this happened, in order to unlock the minitrax I had to climb back up to a stance or where I could unweight it so I could unlock it. After several bouts I ended up completely taking it off the rope for rapping which is a PIA for hanging top-outs. I’m done with the minitrax as a back-up device unless I’m on a route that allows me to top out and take it off! Part of the reason for using an ABD is to make the climbing and rapping as seamless as possible. That’s not possible when using the microtrax as a backup in my experience. The lock-out feature is a total scourge. 

The best device IMO for backing up any primary device is the CT Roll’nLock because it’s lock-open feature is positive and never slips into the lock mode…and, it flows up the rope easily and unnoticed and slides down freely when locked out for rapping. It works really well for difficult hanging top outs - which are most of the routes I TRS. The sequence is: hang on the Vergo; unlock the Roll’nLock; and rap - just like the Lov2. Easy, peasy! Can’t be much simpler. 

Note: Since I originally wrote this, there have been some potential issues found by users when using the RollnLock below another device. Until I can do extensive testing, I've switched back to the MicroTrax with the mods listed here: Microtrax use and mods

For working a section of a route, these days I usually hang when I get to the start of the section I’m working and tie a backup knot below the RnL and then and unlock the RnL Then while working the section all I have to do is rap to the start of the crux again because the RnL is locked-out and freely sliding on the rope. Alternatively, sometimes I don’t use the RnL and just put a maillon on the belay loop and use knots as a back-up making sure that I tie one at the start of the crux section. That also allows quick up-and-down mini laps for repeating a section. (This is probably safer in light of the clam shell construction of the Vergo and the possibility of it exploding apart from jamming against a back-up knot.)

Routes 

The type of routes that I tested the Vergo on ranged from lower angle highly featured slab, to steep and ledgy, to fairly overhung. I don’t think it is suitable for lower angle slab or pure fiction slab because it’s hard to get enough weight on the bottom of the rope to keep it feeding freely. On these type routes I ended pulling rope till it got much steeper, behaving much more like a Grigri. On these type routes it’s better to use a MicroTrax along with the RnL.

Conclusion 

So there you have it. In summary, if you don’t mind using a rope less than 9.6; don’t need or want to down-climb; don’t mind giving up a slight bit in feed performance; and are OK with the design quirks/quality realizing you’re using it outside of specified parameters...the Vergo is a good all-in-one device at a reasonable size/weight and price point. It is certainly much better than any other handled ABDs (GG, Eddy, Lifeguard, Birdie) for TRS. I now understand why people are using it for an all-in-one TRS solution - it’s not a bad choice IMO, in fact if I didn’t have the Lov2 I’d probably settle on this. However, I will probably stick to my first love (Lov2) because of the quality and slightly better feed. 

Device Summary Chart

Click here for my review of the Taz Lov2

My quick summary in the other post has now been changed to: 

The Vergo can be summed up as: half the weight; half the bulk; half the cost; half the quality, and if you don’t mind using 9.5 or smaller ropes you’ll get most of the performance of the Taz Lov2.   

Addendum

It's probably safer to extend the Vergo up ~4" so that it doesn't interfere with the back-up should the primary fail. Also, I think it safer to use a Microtrax for backup than the Rollnlock, as there have been reported issues with the RL not locking up. The safest setup would involve running the MT on a second fixed line so that both would run independent of each other. However, I still use it on a single line with the MT (and Vergo extended up).

Also, I now use an Avant Climbing Innovation's LRS chest harness, which is excellent.

FINE PRINT

This review is my experience and opinions based on the equipment/methods specified and on the types of routes I climb. YMMV. The Trango Vergo is not designed or made for TRS and using for that purpose could be dangerous and life threatening. The info contained here is for informational purposes only and if you choose to follow or implement any of the suggestions and methods above, you do so knowing full well that using a device outside of its intended purpose could result in injury or death.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Postscript - for regular lead belaying, I’ll never go back to a Grigri unless I’m using a really fat rope. I like the Vergo that much!