This is nothing new with these cams. We have been through three of them: two of them had issues with the trigger wires and on one of them we noticed that one of the lobes was fractured after one year of light use. I think they're great cams but OP seems to have some problems with quality control.

To be fair, the cams we were using were the first generation with the 'clip on' trigger wires. On the newer version cams this system has been replaced but the fractured cam lobe raises questions about their safety.

...During the course of the inspection, we subsequently discovered three units which have a small fissure in the steel linkage of the cam lobes.



As unlikely as it sounds, destruct-testing of these units revealed that the defect does NOT reduce the overall strength of the units. In fact, the units we tested failed ABOVE rating. However, since the goods, obviously, do not conform to our specifications, we would like any units with this defect returned for replacement under warranty.

Michael Lane
Sales & Marketing Director
info@omegapac.com
800.360.3990 toll-free
509.456.0170 international

This is why I hung back on these things for a while. The more moving parts you add...

I'm glad I hung back as well.

For some reason, I'm not getting email notification when I get PM'd ...

It is refreshing to see a company standing by their products and consumers, and owning any possible mistakes. Thank you Michael!

It is refreshing to see a company standing by their products and consumers, and owning any possible mistakes. Thank you Michael!

I sent the photos and cam to Michael. I'd reserve judgement on the quality of the equipment or my climbing ability until everything has been sorted out.

[image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=1646;[/image]

but now my wife is going to make me swap those out for the micro camelots but that's a similiar but different story.

Too bad, it looks like a perfect purple or orange alien spot to me.

This is why I hung back on these things for a while. The more moving parts you add...

I sent the photos and cam to Michael. I'd reserve judgement on the quality of the equipment or my climbing ability until everything has been sorted out.

[image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=1646;[/image]

I wonder if O.P. did any testing with link cams in these types of loading orientations. If so, I'm curious about the results. It will definitely be interesting to see what results come of this investigation.

Too bad, it looks like a perfect purple or orange alien spot to me.

Trenchdigger, are you implying that he could have placed that cam differently or 'better'? I'm not sure I see how, short of perhaps placing a different size/brand cam in there, and that only looks like good advice with the advantage of hindsight. Of course, I'm not an engineer or mechanically inclined.

My two cents.

I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe there was a quality issue of any kind with this cam, rather an application issue relative to the limitations of an innovative cam design.

If as you suspect this turns, out to be a design issue, the OP will have to fix it or terminate production. Neither climbers nor OPs insurance will put up with unit failure. Like all their competitors, they can skirt liability with placement failure, but not failure of the gear itself.

Gotta disagree with healyje on this one. A cam coming out of a placement is one thing, and is typically user error. But based on the photo, I would never expect a cam to literally break in that situation. If these cams are subject to breakage in that small a 'non-vertical' orientation, then OP needs to put some serious guidance/restrictions out in their marketing materials.

Gotta disagree with healyje on this one. A cam coming out of a placement is one thing, and is typically user error. But based on the photo, I would never expect a cam to literally break in that situation. If these cams are subject to breakage in that small a 'non-vertical' orientation, then OP needs to put some serious guidance/restrictions out in their marketing materials.

On another note, anyone else think (from what can be seen in the photo) that they'd go straight to a Tricam if this pod would take one? Frankly, I don't like the twisty, torquey shear type force that would be put on ANY cam fallen on when in this pod.

I have heard a rumor that OP gear is made using prison labor. Does anyone have facts or information to back up this rumor?

If the rumor is true, how does OP control quality? What is the incentive for a worker in this environment to care enough about my life to do a good job of manufacturing it?

Again, I don't have facts, but would really like to know.

If this gear failed based on inherent limitations in design, then change the design. I don't want to have to consider subtle alterations in angle and forces when I'm trying to move through a crux, I want to fire a piece in and move through. If link cams are dangerous in angled placements I won't use/buy them. The whole point of the link cam is to reduce the amount of crap I have to carry. If I have to carry BD cams to back up placements where a link cam won't work then what is the point?
Scott

If this gear failed based on inherent limitations in design, then change the design. I don't want to have to consider subtle alterations in angle and forces when I'm trying to move through a crux, I want to fire a piece in and move through. If link cams are dangerous in angled placements I won't use/buy them. The whole point of the link cam is to reduce the amount of crap I have to carry. If I have to carry BD cams to back up placements where a link cam won't work then what is the point?
Scott

IF link cams don't work safely in angled placements I won't buy them. The cams I have already get the job done for me.

That's where your post is getting people riled up. A "safely angled placement" is different in different devices, which you clearly know. The link cams essentially sacrifice a few types of placements for an increased expansion range. That doesn't make it an inherently worse product than anything else on your rack, it just makes it a different one.

If your racking preference and strategy means that you'd rather just stick with your current setup, by all means do so. I happen to follow the same thought, at least until the full limitations of link cams are well known. All devices have "inherent limitations," and it is up to the climber to sort out which limitations and benefits he/she will choose.

That being said, is anyone doing any testing to see how the link cams stand up in placements with large amounts of torque?

I'm no noob. i've been climbing trad 10+ years, mostly now it's FA's. I don't have a clip and go mentality, rarely sport climb at all. What I do have is a desire to live, and it's the job of gear maker's to give me confidence. IF link cams don't work safely in angled placements I won't buy them. The cams I have already get the job done for me. It's a shame because I was thinking of buying one for myself for christmas mainly cause I like shiny new metal.
Scott

i have one alien and use other's. i won't buy any more. i avoid using it or back it up if i do. i definitely won't use it in a groundfall scenario. to be honest - nuts are my favorite piece of pro.
S

..My engineering background <non-scientifically based speculation follows> tells me that although these link cams are just as strong as others when loaded in a lab setting (a "perfect" crack, and loaded inline with the placement) they may not be as durable when it comes to off-axis, torqueing loads such as this case. I own the same red link cam, and to be quite honest, I'm not sure I would have had so mouch faith in it in that placement...

We have tested the assembled links for what we call "over-edge" strength. That is, we set up a perpendicular force on one end of a set of outstretched links with the opposite end anchored, stressed over an obstacle, or edge at the mid-points to test the ultimate strength of the hinge points.

This is interesting, and not a negative criticism of Omega Pacific, but if in this placement the cam was near to full retraction the amount of torque on the extended arm could have been significantly larger than in the OP tests. In this situation the axle end could be considered fixed, with the force applied at the end of the extended lobe and instead of it being "stressed over an obstacle, or edge at the mid-points" it would have been stressed over an obstacle at the point of contact which would have been close to the axle. This would create a significantly longer lever arm which, it would seem, could then be broken with a smaller applied force than in the tests. Once the lobe broke, the cam probably would have rotated very suddenly which may have caused it to dislodge, particularly if this was a flaring placement.

I hope this diagram is clear, but is this the sort of effect you're talking about?

My only point here is that climbing gear has limitations. And sometimes one of those limited pieces is the ONLY piece that will work in that spot, I accept the limitation and try to plan around it (get another piece in ASAP!)

What we all need to know of course is exactly WHAT those limitations are, for Link cams that is. Not knowing is far worse than knowing.

DMT

whats the update?

For those of you who haven't tried link cams, or tried them enough not to get used to them, this is just another ridiculous piece of gear that will fail because it is over-complicated.

For those of us who have seen our climbing change because of unique and broad range of placements made possible by link cams this is both sad and scary. If link cams go away, this will be a big step backwards, IMO.
-Kate.

Link cams are a great, versatile piece of gear, but if there is a risk of breakage in some applications based on design, climbers should know about it, even if it damages OP's stance in the market. I'm not at all saying that OP should be burned at the stake for making a "less perfect" unit...but I'd also like to avoid suprises with gear.

Wanderlustmd - in general, my response to this and similar comments relative to the [obvious] limitations to the Link cam design is that it isn't rocket science, but rather just a matter of opening your eyes - one quick glance tells you all there is to know.

I think OP is to be commended for this exploration past the boundaries of convential cam design and the odds are pretty damn good this is a state-of-the-art application of our current commercial materials science. But the odds are equally good that 'state-of-the-art' in materials science currently isn't good enough to produce an indestructible, segmented lobe cam at a weight most folks would be willing to carry. One look at them also tells you OP designers and engineers worked their asses off and agonized back-and-forth over every .001 of an inch on the things.

Personally, I think it's a bold design and business move on OP's part - but it's all of us, and not them, who are solely responsible for our determination of the fitness of these devices for any given application on lead. Funny how this sort of thing really brings out the generational difference in climbers and probably highlights to just what extent 'modern' climbing has become another well-integrated commodity / consumer-oriented activity.

Seriously, why go through all that expense and procure that much expertise when we can find a guy who can take one look at a cam and tell you it is going to explode?

OK Healy.Now tell us...how many failed Aliens vs.how many in use? And how many failed Link Cams vs. how many in use?

No problem, happy to help out. So, basically, this really is a generational 'Emperor hads no clothes" sort of deal where you and others look at a Link Cam and go, "wow, cool, just like a regular cam only better...!" I and others predicted these babies would start popping the minute the first picture was released - why? Because they are clearly 'surfing' out on the leading edge of what today's materials can possibly hope to deliver. That took about a tenth of a second glance at one to figure out.

ISO, CE, UIAA are all about minimums, ideals, quality processes, engineering test beds, and guidance - not the word of God. They also relate more to the manufacture, rather than design application, when it comes to protection. And 'Relying on the expertise of others has been and likely always will be a perilous affair regardless of how it's packaged, sold, and marketed.

Wanderlustmd - in general, my response to this and similar comments relative to the [obvious] limitations to the Link cam design is that it isn't rocket science, but rather just a matter of opening your eyes - one quick glance tells you all there is to know.

I think OP is to be commended for this exploration past the boundaries of convential cam design and the odds are pretty damn good this is a state-of-the-art application of our current commercial materials science. But the odds are equally good that 'state-of-the-art' in materials science currently isn't good enough to produce an indestructible, segmented lobe cam at a weight most folks would be willing to carry. One look at them also tells you OP designers and engineers worked their asses off and agonized back-and-forth over every .001 of an inch on the things.

Personally, I think it's a bold design and business move on OP's part - but it's all of us, and not them, who are solely responsible for our determination of the fitness of these devices for any given application on lead. Funny how this sort of thing really brings out the generational difference in climbers and probably highlights to just what extent 'modern' climbing has become another well-integrated commodity / consumer-oriented activity.

You totally just ended a perfectly reasonable post with, "these damn kids and their new-fangled gear."

How many Links have broken?

Aside from the trigger recall.

And I'm afraid we have to rely on the expertise of others more and more every day in order to adapt to the more sophisticated world around us, or risk becoming dinosaurs.

And relying on the reputation in front of that expertise has been commonplace in climbing for a while, and is probably best highlighted by what CCH is dealing with, and the number of recommendations for a new Metolius cam which hasn't been used by anyone outside testing and development.

jay, all his posts end with some iteration of "these damn kids..."

More like "these gullible damn kids..." after this thread and if they force OP to withdraw Link Cams from the market because they can't figure out when and how to use them appropriately.

I've read the literature that came with both #1 and #2 link cam back to front several times and I don't recall encountering any indication that these things shouldn't be placed in pods or otherwise have placement limitations that differ substantially from those of a regular cam. That being said if it comes out in the wash that there are certain placements that must be avoided with these things, that's cool, all gear has it's limitations, but until such time as OP includes these supposed limitations in the literature how can this credibly be considered pilot error and not blatant gear failure?

Well, hate to sound like a broken record, but how about just looking at them - solid stems, fragile segmented cams? Do you really need to be told or otherwise have it spelled out? Pretty obvious that stout stem can apply significant leverage on those fragile links if allowed to rotate after placing the unit or if it rests on an edge. To be honest, I would think it completely obvious to anyone who considered themselves passed the level of an intermediate trad climber.

The literature is pretty irrelavant in my view as it would be virtually impossible to list or characterize all the potential kinds of placements where you could run into problems with these units.

healyje, do you have a materials science/engineering background? Your claim that this outcome was obvious with a 1/10th second glance sounds disingenuous to me. If the limitation was that obvious, why didn't OP bother to list that in their materials? Such a clear design limitation would have been forced into their materials by their legal department; to do otherwise would seem to invite unnecessary legal problems. Maybe it wasn't so obvious to OP either - they've responded that their testing of link cams for similar rotational forces placed them right in the middle of the pack compared to other cams.

The question is how is the average climber is supposed to know about these inherent design limitations and maybe the difference is generational, and maybe you're asking too much of the average climber.

Your analogy to a biner over an edge is interesting, but unconvincing; this seemingly obvious design limitation is obviously not so apparent to many users. Just because you think it's obvious doesn't make it so, no?

Needs to be returned quickly to the manufacturer. It is difficult to see from the pictures, but looks like brittle fracture initiated by a material defect/inclusion.
Return it for immediate envestigation!

The way that we treat OPacific in this situation will be one of the drivers of whether or not Other companies are willing to take the risk of making innovative designs, testing them the best they can, and bringing them to market.

ISO, CE, UIAA are all about minimums, ideals, quality processes, engineering test beds, and guidance - not the word of God. They also relate more to the manufacture, rather than design application, when it comes to protection. And 'Relying on the expertise of others' in climbing has been and likely always will be a perilous affair regardless of how it's packaged, sold, and marketed.

Hmmm, let me get this straight - so there are a lot of you, if not a majority of you - who look at this cam and see what? A better-than-normal, do-it-all cam? You look at those links and they look fine and robust? Are you saying you really think it takes an engineer or rocket scientist to figure out there might be limitations to the design?

I don't know, maybe I've just broken enough stuff so that it all seems pretty obvious to me.

Totally... <snip> ... the biggest problem with stuff like this almost always can be attributed to the marketing department dominating the engineering/testing department. That crap was even happening at a bio-med firm I was working for... The VP of marketing was always trying to get us to bypass safety over common sense. He could give a shit if some guy died or was injured, just as long as he sold more of our product.