Forums: Climbing Information: Injury Treatment and Prevention:
Omega Cam Breaking!
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Injury Treatment and Prevention

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16 Next page Last page  View All


dingus


Dec 4, 2007, 7:28 AM
Post #76 of 388 (10973 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17361

Re: [billcoe_] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

My basic rack includes pieces that will not hold a substantial free climbing fall.

I leave those pieces on the ground if I don't think they will be needed. If they ARE needed? They are NEEDED!!!111

#00, #0 and #1 TCUs, the tinest aliens (or any other tiny cam for that matter) and the tiniest nuts... will all blow apart with forces that can be generated in a climbing fall.

Kate swears by Links for aid climbing - I accedpt her judgement (haven't used them for that purpose myself).

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


(This post was edited by dingus on Dec 4, 2007, 7:29 AM)


Partner holdplease2


Dec 4, 2007, 9:22 AM
Post #77 of 388 (10906 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 1733

Re: [dingus] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I've been quiet on this thread, but as someone who has six link cams, two of which have been on my rack since they came to market, and tripples of Retired C4s, I'm interested in seeing what's going on in this situation.

After seeing my lead climbing (in straightforward cracks) go up multiple letter grades doe to the ease of placement/gear selection offered by link cams, and the size of wall rack I carry going down (carry two link cams for movement on a nailing pitch, instead of two each purple thru gold camalot), this makes me really, really sad.

My link cams have caught multiple free climbing falls, held probably hundreds of monster bounce tests (many in really weird placements), and been integrated into wall anchors that stood up to forces from 3:1 counterweight hauls.

I have always placed them keeping in mind the "shearing" type of weakness shown in the picture, as intuitively this seemed like a possibility.

However, until this is resolved, I am not climbing on them again. Will there be a recall because some metal was bad? Was this cam "Pre-fractured" in line with the last recall? I don't know.

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.

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.

Based on my previous interactions with OPacific, and their response to this situation, they are NOT another CCH. I look forward to seeing how this resolves.

-Kate.


Partner cracklover


Dec 4, 2007, 9:44 AM
Post #78 of 388 (10877 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [dingus] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
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

Dingus, I could not agree with you more. Sadly, there is a real and a serious downside though, for OP, in publicizing any design limitation.

The downside is this: many, many people look to cams as an end-all-be-all solution. They expect that - if it fits in the crack, it will keep them safe. Period. And they look for the one cam on the market that best fits this criterion. To the degree that a cam is limited in its application, it loses market share.

GO


wanderlustmd


Dec 4, 2007, 10:41 AM
Post #79 of 388 (10821 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8149

Re: [cracklover] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Market share is trivial; if link cams are prone to breakage when placed in such a way that has potential to torque and damage the secondary lobes (as in the photos above), people should know about it so they can act accordingly. If OP wants equal market share, hopefully they can figure out a way to make link cams just as strong as a regular cam in this application.

In regard to people thinking that cams (or any piece of gear) is an end-all be-all...that isn't OP's (or any gear manufacturer's) problem. That's where user competantcy comes into play (of course).

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.


tallmark515


Dec 10, 2007, 5:07 PM
Post #80 of 388 (10569 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 1, 2006
Posts: 281

Re: [wanderlustmd] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

any updates? Any new info from Omega? Just curious.

(This post was edited by tallmark515 on Dec 10, 2007, 5:08 PM)


medicus


Dec 10, 2007, 5:24 PM
Post #81 of 388 (10545 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2006
Posts: 727

Re: [tallmark515] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm guessing "no" since OP hasn't posted here yet.


badsanta


Dec 17, 2007, 11:45 AM
Post #82 of 388 (10377 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2006
Posts: 83

one week later [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

whats the update?


xtremst80


Dec 17, 2007, 12:05 PM
Post #83 of 388 (10345 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 306

Re: [badsanta] one week later [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

badsanta wrote:
whats the update?

Well obviously none if the OP hasn't re posted!


badsanta


Dec 17, 2007, 12:40 PM
Post #84 of 388 (10300 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2006
Posts: 83

I wasnt talking to your troll [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I wasn't talking to you troll. Whats the update?


reg


Dec 17, 2007, 12:45 PM
Post #85 of 388 (10293 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560

Re: [holdplease2] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

holdplease2 wrote:



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.

i've never used one but that was my initial gut feelin.

holdplease2 wrote:
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.

that's ah great point. build a better mouse trap and they will beat down your door. i don't believe link cam is the better mouse trap - not sure where gear can go from where we are now but that said, i did think of the roller biner concept before it was on the market! true statement. all right let's hear it! - R


healyje


Dec 17, 2007, 2:39 PM
Post #86 of 388 (10226 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [wanderlustmd] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

wanderlustmd wrote:
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.


(This post was edited by healyje on Dec 17, 2007, 2:40 PM)


caughtinside


Dec 17, 2007, 2:49 PM
Post #87 of 388 (10204 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30323

Re: [healyje] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
wanderlustmd wrote:
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.

A good post healyje. It does point out generational differences. I guess if I had been around and made my own pro and threaded my own perlon 30 years ago, I wouldn't feel entitled to rely on the expertiese of others, which presumably includes a team of engineers (most if not all of whom I'd expect to be climbers.) Also generational to rely on industry certification.

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?


tomcat


Dec 17, 2007, 2:55 PM
Post #88 of 388 (10191 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 324

Re: [caughtinside] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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?


healyje


Dec 17, 2007, 5:22 PM
Post #89 of 388 (10115 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [caughtinside] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
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?

No problem, happy to help out. So, basically, this really is a generational 'Emperor has 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' in climbing has been and likely always will be a perilous affair regardless of how it's packaged, sold, and marketed.


(This post was edited by healyje on Dec 17, 2007, 6:03 PM)


healyje


Dec 17, 2007, 5:29 PM
Post #90 of 388 (10104 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [tomcat] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

tomcat wrote:
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?

The distinction is between a reasonable design manufactured poorly and a design with [obvious] limitations manufacturered as well as current material sciences allow. An Alien user who hasn't self-tested his or her cams has no way of knowing the outcome of an appropriate placement. That's entirely different than a Link Cam owner placing one of them inappropriately and having a pretty predictable outcome.

I don't think OP has done a bad job manufacturing Link Cams - I think the design just has limitations lots of folks may be unable to perceive or work within. I consider it no different than complaining about a biner breaking during a fall after it was placed over an edge.


caughtinside


Dec 17, 2007, 5:40 PM
Post #91 of 388 (10089 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30323

Re: [healyje] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
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?

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.

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.


Partner j_ung


Dec 17, 2007, 5:42 PM
Post #92 of 388 (10084 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [healyje] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
wanderlustmd wrote:
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.

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


caughtinside


Dec 17, 2007, 5:44 PM
Post #93 of 388 (10079 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30323

Re: [j_ung] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
healyje wrote:
wanderlustmd wrote:
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.

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

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


healyje


Dec 17, 2007, 6:00 PM
Post #94 of 388 (10067 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [caughtinside] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
How many Links have broken?

Aside from the trigger recall.

I view the trigger issue as a normal design revision instance and one easily remedied. The cam lobes breaking will likely not yield to such a ready solution.

caughtinside wrote:
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.

In lots of areas of life that's true. In climbing, outside of ropes, it isn't except in our expectations and what we're individually prepared to be responsible for relative to our own climbing.

caughtinside wrote:
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.

The difference is Metolius, OP, and others have demonstrated a strong track record of manufacturing, quality management, and customer service that spans many years and many different products and product lines. CCH on the otherhand, is a one-trick pony and more an artisan craft shop than a formal manufacturing operation. It had the opportunity to evolve from one to the other when it pinned down big box retail contracts, but then couldn't manage to scale their business - bummer, but it happens.


healyje


Dec 17, 2007, 6:54 PM
Post #95 of 388 (10032 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [caughtinside] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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

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.


knieveltech


Dec 17, 2007, 7:33 PM
Post #96 of 388 (10006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2006
Posts: 1431

Re: [healyje] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
j_ung wrote:
You totally just ended a perfectly reasonable post with, "these damn kids and their new-fangled gear." Tongue

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?


healyje


Dec 17, 2007, 8:04 PM
Post #97 of 388 (9977 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [knieveltech] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

knieveltech wrote:
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.


(This post was edited by healyje on Dec 17, 2007, 8:05 PM)


nivlac


Dec 17, 2007, 8:16 PM
Post #98 of 388 (9969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141

Re: [healyje] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
knieveltech wrote:
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?


healyje


Dec 18, 2007, 12:51 AM
Post #99 of 388 (9920 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4196

Re: [nivlac] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

nivlac wrote:
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.

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?

nivlac wrote:
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.

You may be right, but again, if climbers can no longer see these limitations, then I'd suggest something essential has been lost from the skill and craft of 'average' trad climbers. If so, I figure it's an extension of many young climbers' strong preference for active versus passive pro; or maybe simply a result of years of commericalization in the sport such that today's climbers don't, won't, or can't distinguish between climbing gear and any other consumer product relative to evaluating gear with a critical eye given we're talking their lives.

nivlac wrote:
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?

I think another fair question might be, how are beginning and intermediate climbers supposed to recognize they shouldn't be using gear which requires advanced skills, craft, and judgment to use appropriately? I don't see the market differentiating the skill levels required to use various pieces of gear.
Maybe it's a [natural] downside in the explosion of the number of climbers and the change from mentor-based learning to more socially-oriented guide/group/Internet learning.

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


pwscottiv


Dec 18, 2007, 1:53 AM
Post #100 of 388 (9906 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Posts: 157

Re: [JohnCook] Omega Cam Breaking! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JohnCook wrote:
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!
I don't know about a defect/inclusion being a problem in this instance, but yeah, DEFINITELY a brittle fracture. They definitely need to be using a material that has more ductility to it. Not good.Mad

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Injury Treatment and Prevention

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$12.56 (10% off)
$13.46 (10% off)
$57.31 (10% off)
$17.95 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook