Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab: Re: [patto] Cams retracted from ?% to ?%: Edit Log




verticon


Nov 15, 2008, 2:27 AM

Views: 3061

Registered: Aug 22, 2005
Posts: 223

Re: [patto] Cams retracted from ?% to ?%
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

I didn't say the DMM guy brought something new, I just quoted him FYI.

Let me make clear the point of all this: I wanted to get some meaningfull data for the range analysis of my rack (the attached table - pdf)

Some obvious conclusions:

1. If one uses the extra expansion range, beyond the one recommended by the manufacturers, one would be at risk (instability, cam slippage, etc.).
2. The marketed range of SLCDs is way different from the real life "safe" range. (the graph at the bottom of the attached PDF)
3. Rangewise, there's no much difference between a BD Camalot and a DMM 4CU for the ideal placement. The only advantage of the Camalot over 4CU is that it can be used in a wider range of "less than ideal placements", in an unsafe overcammed position.

4. It's up to the climber to determine how much unsafe is still safe enough, based on own experience, intuition, technical level, etc.

5. The manufacturers should quit marketing the misleading "expansion range", replacing it with the actual expansion range (crack widths for ideal placements).

What do you think of this ?


(This post was edited by verticon on Nov 15, 2008, 11:45 AM)
Attachments: rack-web.pdf (141 KB)



Edit Log:
Post edited by verticon () on Nov 15, 2008, 11:45 AM


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$76.46 (10% off)
$22.46 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$4.05 (10% off)