Forums: Climbing Information: Injury Treatment and Prevention: Re: [baja_java] Link Cam Report: Edit Log




healyje


Jan 6, 2008, 11:20 PM

Views: 7895

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [baja_java] Link Cam Report
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

baja_java wrote:
healyje wrote:
Sure, if forces remain close to an axis perpendicular to the axle, then yes, they will perform comparably - but, the minute those forces start to significantly diverge from the perpendicular, let alone just being applied laterally - all bets are off. That's because now we're talking about the ability of [multiple] linkage assemblies to resist deflection and deformation as opposed to that of a material.

hello? that's what those cited test results showed, that the Link Cam is comparable to other cams in that latter regard. the results by Omega Pacific and Trango are limited. but that's limited evidence versus your ZERO evidence. do you have any data that support your claim that their design has got to be flawed? have you broken that cam yet? what have you learned? instead of raving about group-think and blinding consumerism and suburban life, maybe you should work on that instead

The tests that have been presented by vendors have been clinical engineering tests - not particularly representative of the real world, especially places like JT. Again, you folks who obsess over "data" are actually pretty funny from my perspective given you'd need a few more petaflops than are currently available to do a decent model of that JT pod. And my god - just how did anyone climb without data? Hey, as I said, measure the thickness of one of the middle segment flanges - if you need more data than that you really are living in a wonderland where everything is perfect until proven otherwise. Bill and I are coordinating on getting together to break the cam and at the moment are scheduled to do it tomorrow night. We'll post up our "data" once we're done.

But again I need to be explicity clear - I in no way find the design of the Link Cam "flawed", as you state above, any more than I find the design of the original Friend flawed because it had a rigid stem. What I am saying is the design has limitations.

baja_java wrote:
only to people with speculative angst who can't come to grips with the fact that sometimes these things take a little time (likely not much time at all in this case), to people like you who think they're entitled to everything right here and right now, so you can feed off of every bits and pieces of the latest and churn out more speculations founded or unfounded. of the tens of thousands who use this site everyday and the hundreds or more who have followed this discussion, you're the only one throwing a pissy fit over this

Actually, that's a pretty angst-ridden paragraph as they go. Maybe you'd care to explain how 'these things' can 'take a little time'? The facts of an event require no more time than the event itself - a technical analysis of those facts may take 'a little time', but the facts of an event do not. Again, I am totally in support of the use of these cams regardless of your cam or the breakage of JT. My 'speculation' is based on over three decades of climbing and breaking a lot of shit.

baja_java wrote:
not overzealous? you accused everyone else who don't agree with you that they're in denial. you went against limited evidence based on your zero evidence and claim the linkages simply "have got to be" weak and thereby imply the people at that gear company are the kind who would let a design error of this magnitude make it out onto market

As said above, that a tri-segmented cam lobe design might likely be weak is in no way a "design error", it is simply an unavoidable consequence of the fact that materials science at the start of the 21st century unfortunately can't yet deliver indestructable materials for our entertainment. I'd personally love incredibly light and virtually unbreakable spider silk ropes and indestructable cams, but they don't exist. In the meantime I and everyone else needs to be sure and work within the design constraints of our gear.

baja_java wrote:
we're not refraining from blaming the equipment right away like you're doing because we're oh so taken by the fancy technology, as you so casually generalized. and no, we're not relying on faith alone like you want to think either. you are wrong. again, there are the cited test results. the data are limited, but not completely meaningless. that versus your zero evidence. furthermore, unlike your blind belief alone on what "ought" to be, i'm also capable of evaluating the kind of major design flaw you're suggesting and how that should bear out in field use by myself and others. Link Cams are not yet as popular and owned worldwide like some other cams are. but enough people out there do have and use them. if what you claim were true, that the joints are as flimsy as you say, at many many places you'd run into people with horror stories about how theirs have just shattered left and right. but that's not the case. more likely those people would tell you how great their range is, how they've become their "go to" pieces, or wish how they could be even lighter, or some who might say how theirs walked and got "stuck" and ended up somebody else's booty. aside from the Inspection Notice that seems to have passed, no, nothing about breakage, until this incident with a flared pod

You need to go back and read my posts considerably more carefully - OP couldn't find a bigger supporter in all this discussion than me. I'm in fact trying to insure designs as innovative as the Link Cam continued to be offered by gear manufacturers. But they won't continue to be offered if people are incapable of using the within the scope of their [design] limitations. Using them while simultaneously denying such limitations exist is the problem, not the cams. These cams are new to the market and before they were ever on the shelves of retiailers I did predict we'd be having this conversation sooner than later and that's what's happening. And we'll be seeing more of these cams come apart over time - and in the vast majority of cases it will be pilot error just like the one which started this discussion.

baja_java wrote:
do you understand what happens to cams in flared placements, Joseph? understand. not recite a few formula or the conclusion at the end of Vaino's formulation. not regurgitate a catch phrase or two that others have used. i'm asking because it seems if you did understand, you should at least consider that as a possible cause that should not be discounted, and be less fanatical in unilaterally declaring (with no test data of your own or from anyone else) that the linkages on the cams has got to be a design flaw. see, others and i do understand. we can therefore see a completely plausible scenario where this cam or any other cam could be broken. i'm aware that the equipment might be at fault too, by design. that is possible, though seems unlikely, after limited test results were cited and if one would simply apply a little reasoning. and i'd rather not immediately blame the equipment without at least trying to eliminate the former possibility. unlike you, i just don't believe in ignoring a possible explanation and go straight for the equipment angle and start insinuating a fault in a design that might well not be faulty, and in effect bad mouth a company that might well have not done anything wrong, who doesn't really deserve this. so again, do you really comprehend the principles described in Vaino's link or elsewhere? do you really grasp what that's about?

I understand just fine, and don't need the math to explain the graph or rgolds description of the phenomena. I also don't need the math after thirty three years of climbing to know most convential cams will blow out of flares rather than break. One will on rare occasion - but the vast, overwhelming majority blow, not break. So, if it's your belief, based on your understanding of the math, that any cam would break in the same circumstances where I consider the Link Cams to be more vunerable, then I would say the "data" doesn't support your thinking or we'd be seeing conventional cams break in flares 'left and right' as you say. They plainly do not.

baja_java wrote:
i can tell that you don't give a rat's ass about how what you say regarding a gear design and your unfounded speculation and claim might affect a gear company who might well have done nothing wrong. but i'm not like you. here, the caution has already been raised by the first incident. there's no real urgency for disclosure for my case. not that i haven't already given everyone a headsup, and stating clearly that more is likely forthcoming soon. i know this isn't important to you, but there is an effect on a gear company here that is significant enough to warrant consideration, and i believe it's the right thing to do in this instance to extend that consideration. all i'm doing is giving them the opportunity to see what i did to my fractured cam and see if our thinkings are along the same lines, about whether this second incident is exactly the same or nowhere near the same as what happened before. i need to talk to them about that in order to do that, when they've got the cam in hand. and they will likely need to talk to me too, as they've already said. it's like when you set up an experiment to test something, even after you've gotten the results, you still have to go back and make sure you've created the conditions correctly. others like rgold, curt, dingus, jay, k.l.k, murf, mheyman, etc, they don't seem to have a problem with this. the only one who is making this obnoxious demand is you, because you just can't come to grips that for now the basic info i've given does suffice, that me having said more is likely to come soon should suffice, that in a few days there may well be all the info anyone would want, that you seem to think your need to know everything right now should overrule everything else. well, if you still don't get it, let me tell you loud and clear. with respect to what's going on, you're just not that important, Joseph. it's nothing personal. it's just what i think is the responsible way to handle this

I never said I was important. What I am saying is that information about gear failures should be completely open and transparent and there is no reason of merit why they should not be.

baja_java wrote:
this discussion started by longdraw (and dirtme) is an accident report. mine is not an accident report. if it were, climber and eyewitnesses like dirtme and longdraw would usually be the best ones anyway to present what happened. and there wouldn't be any need for them to first go back and make sure that they've created the "accident conditions" correctly according to spec's on the day they've decided to be at the same place and the same time to have and to witness said accident. if you didn't realize before, i hope you will realize by now that, really, you just need to calm down

I'm exceedingly calm, but to repeat, there is no reason of merit why you can't simply say how you broke the cam. I'm guessing you could have easily done it by now in a tenth of the words you've managed in this post.

baja_java wrote:
you know, it's not like i've decided to hide the fractured cam in the basement and keep its fractured coolness all to myself and have decided not to let anyone else see it ever. after the fracture, i immediately contacted Omega Pacific and express mailed it to their place in WA. i sent it ASAP to the one place that needs to have it the most, and there's now an evaluation process that goes with that that might well be quite short. sorry if Joseph on some forum discussion on the internet has to take a backseat. yeah, quite the tragedy

The only one who is importing the necessity for secrecy and silence is you. OP has no such requirement - shit breaks, get used to it - trust me, they and every other reputable gear manufacturer are.

baja_java wrote:
you should take a timeout and reconsider a little about your own behavior thus far, before crusading to alter the generalized attitudes of others who climb

The 'generalized attitudes of others' on display in this thread and a lot of others are largely of two extremes - one an unyielding belief that gear should and does work automagically and indestructably, and the other which goes into a blind hysteria when a piece of gear breaks. I have little doubt of the cause of this marked deterioration of personal responsibility and inability to simply accept the reality of gear as it hangs on their racks, but that would be another thread entirely.


(This post was edited by healyje on Jan 7, 2008, 1:27 AM)



Edit Log:
Post edited by healyje () on Jan 7, 2008, 12:13 AM
Post edited by healyje () on Jan 7, 2008, 1:27 AM


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?