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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next page Last page  View All


blondgecko
Moderator

Dec 19, 2007, 2:09 PM
Post #151 of 388 (10877 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [badsanta] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

badsanta wrote:
I agree with dominic7. While I think the linkcam is a great product (if it doesn't break or pull out), in the real world, we aren't going to use pro perfectly every time. And gear shouldn't break if it isn't used perfectly. I've fell on many different kinds of cams in different types of cracks and while I have had two 0 TCUs pull out, i haven't had any break. I don't think most other brand cams would have broken when placed in the same way in that spot. I don't think most would have pulled out if placed in the lower half of the cam range. But until that theory is tested in that crack with other brand cams (which I won't do) no one knows. I'll hold off on buying a linkcam, but I'd still use them (perfectly placed).

Pull out, break, WTF difference does it make? You still deck either way. Besides, by the sounds of that fall/placement, I wouldn't be surprised if any other cam in the same situation would be damaged beyond further use.


k.l.k


Dec 19, 2007, 2:20 PM
Post #152 of 388 (10866 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [badsanta] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

badsanta wrote:
I agree with dominic7. While I think the linkcam is a great product (if it doesn't break or pull out), in the real world, we aren't going to use pro perfectly every time. And gear shouldn't break if it isn't used perfectly. I've fell on many different kinds of cams in different types of cracks and while I have had two 0 TCUs pull out, i haven't had any break. I don't think most other brand cams would have broken when placed in the same way in that spot. I don't think most would have pulled out if placed in the lower half of the cam range. But until that theory is tested in that crack with other brand cams (which I won't do) no one knows. I'll hold off on buying a linkcam, but I'd still use them (perfectly placed).

Badsanta, if your self-representation is accurate, you are a "5.10a" trad climber who has twice (!) fallen to failure on 0 TCUs. My best guess is that Michael Lane is praying that you don't have a Link Cam on your rack.


maldaly


Dec 19, 2007, 2:23 PM
Post #153 of 388 (10862 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1207

Re: [blondgecko] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

To address dominic7s point, it appears that there was placement failure followed by material failure rather than the other way around. This is not uncommon at all when we field test cams intentionally placed in bad placements. It happen more often with tiny cams but it does happen with all sizes. If a placement partially fails then the cam is loaded on two cams only and then all test results, bets and performance estimations are off. In this case, the force was applied at an angle other than what was intended and the cam is forced to try to align with the load. When it can't, (As in this case) , the upper cams pulled out of the flare and loaded the remaining 2 lobes in a manner that possibly no cam could sustain.

michaellane, doesn't it make you laugh that people think that we're huge companies with the Marketing Gods ruling down from the top (Penthouse) floors? I should post up some pictures of me cleaning the toilets at Trango.
Climb safe,
Mal


Partner angry


Dec 19, 2007, 2:39 PM
Post #154 of 388 (10839 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [maldaly] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

After 7 pages we're basically back to "Shitty placements can fail"

I like the people who decidedly "will not" own a piece of gear that has a mode of failure. Any failure.

What on this board has failed in the last few years?

Cams - I've seen a report of most brands I can think of pulling out in some situation. The only one I haven't heard a specific story about is Krok.

Actually, I haven't heard more than a handful of anecdotes about nuts failing. Usually small ones. So that said, you can't carry RP's, they are too small.

Ice Screws, again not as many failures as I'd expect but they do seem to come out on occasion. So in keeping with the theme, you aren't allowed to have ice screws either.

Quickdraws and Slings - we've seen them break or break when cut on this board. Too risky for me.

Ropes - apparently they break when treated with battery acid. Better not take the chance, no ropes ever.

Harnesses - according to teh net, all harnesses are either poised to kill you or poised to break your biners, then you die.

Biners - they break loaded over an edge.

Bolts - old and new we know that they can fail and this has been shown to us.

I'm sure there's something missing but this is enough to summarize.

If you want to climb safely, with gear I have not heard of failing, you can only have Krok cams, big bro's, and tricams. You won't need them because you have no rope or harness.


michaellane


Dec 19, 2007, 2:40 PM
Post #155 of 388 (10838 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 16, 2004
Posts: 89

Re: [maldaly] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

maldaly wrote:
michaellane, doesn't it make you laugh that people think that we're huge companies with the Marketing Gods ruling down from the top (Penthouse) floors? I should post up some pictures of me cleaning the toilets at Trango.
Climb safe,
Mal

Sure does and I could go on and on, but I've got an appointment with the Omega Masseuse and it's about a fifteen minute elevator ride down to the gym from my office, so I have to cut it short. You know how it is.

--ML


yokese


Dec 19, 2007, 2:42 PM
Post #156 of 388 (10827 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [maldaly] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

maldaly wrote:
I should post up some pictures of me cleaning the toilets at Trango.

Paste one of your videos Wink


badsanta


Dec 19, 2007, 2:48 PM
Post #157 of 388 (10813 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2006
Posts: 83

Re: [k.l.k] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.i.k, if your self-representation is accurate, all of us are wishing you'd shut your hole.


maldaly


Dec 19, 2007, 3:11 PM
Post #158 of 388 (10772 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1207

Re: [yokese] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

yokese, you want an instructional video on how to clean a toilet?

Dude!


yokese


Dec 19, 2007, 3:17 PM
Post #159 of 388 (10760 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [maldaly] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

maldaly wrote:
yokese, you want an instructional video on how to clean a toilet?

Dude!

Actually, based on my girlfriend's comments, I might need it Blush


badsanta


Dec 19, 2007, 3:26 PM
Post #160 of 388 (10743 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2006
Posts: 83

Re: [badsanta] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

This isn't about placements that fail, this is about gear that fails. Most gear does not break, contrary to Angry's statement. Read the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and implied warranty of merchantability. Of those who apologize for it and rationalize it, what is your agenda/interest?


Partner angry


Dec 19, 2007, 3:34 PM
Post #161 of 388 (10723 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [badsanta] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

badsanta wrote:
This isn't about placements that fail, this is about gear that fails. Most gear does not break, contrary to Angry's statement. Read the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and implied warranty of merchantability. Of those who apologize for it and rationalize it, what is your agenda/interest?

I never said most gear breaks. I just made a little list of gear that I've heard of failing (and sometimes breaking) in the last few years.

It's your life though, take your chances.


curt


Dec 19, 2007, 3:46 PM
Post #162 of 388 (10716 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18230

Re: [badsanta] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

badsanta wrote:
k.i.k, if your self-representation is accurate, all of us are wishing you'd shut your hole.

Yeah, after all, k.l.k. has only been trad climbing at a high standard for 30 years or so now. Then again, I haven't yet seen a single post from you that would indicate you have a desire to learn anything from those who know far more about climbing than you do. STFU n00b.

Curt


k.l.k


Dec 19, 2007, 3:48 PM
Post #163 of 388 (10712 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [badsanta] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kiss my ass pussy badsanta Dec 19, 2007, 2:47 PM

I saved that PM for posterity.

You're right, my tone was a bit sharp. This has been a useful thread and I'd hate to see it degnerate into a flame war. What I ought to have done was to point out that Malcolm Daly, a bit up thread, had already posted an account of cam failures that spoke to your and DOminic's concerns about "material" rather than "placement" failure. I assumed that you simply hadn't taken the time to read that post. But to judge from your subsequent comments, it appears that you really didn't care what folks with expertise on the topic had to say.

Kudos to Malcolm and Michael for their interventions and patience.


caughtinside


Dec 19, 2007, 4:06 PM
Post #164 of 388 (10691 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30429

Re: [badsanta] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

badsanta wrote:
This isn't about placements that fail, this is about gear that fails. Most gear does not break, contrary to Angry's statement. Read the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and implied warranty of merchantability. Of those who apologize for it and rationalize it, what is your agenda/interest?

I don't think you understand that neither of those warranties are absolute warranties against breakage.


Partner dominic7


Dec 19, 2007, 4:13 PM
Post #165 of 388 (10678 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Posts: 18646

Re: [maldaly] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

maldaly wrote:
To address dominic7s point, it appears that there was placement failure followed by material failure rather than the other way around. This is not uncommon at all when we field test cams intentionally placed in bad placements. It happen more often with tiny cams but it does happen with all sizes. If a placement partially fails then the cam is loaded on two cams only and then all test results, bets and performance estimations are off. In this case, the force was applied at an angle other than what was intended and the cam is forced to try to align with the load. When it can't, (As in this case) , the upper cams pulled out of the flare and loaded the remaining 2 lobes in a manner that possibly no cam could sustain.

michaellane, doesn't it make you laugh that people think that we're huge companies with the Marketing Gods ruling down from the top (Penthouse) floors? I should post up some pictures of me cleaning the toilets at Trango.
Climb safe,
Mal

Hey fair enough. You guys are the experts here - I'm completely naive when it comes to materials, engineering, field testing and so forth. I have enjoyed reading through this thread though!

I'll just say that I've been slowly wandering towards adding a couple of LinkCams to the rack for a couple of years now and this Christmas was going to be the time. I had one in my hand last night in the store and didn't end up getting it. I'm going to let some more time pass and hopefully this will all just be a flash in the pan and soon forgotten.


billcoe_


Dec 19, 2007, 4:18 PM
Post #166 of 388 (10670 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: [k.l.k] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ditto on the Kudos and hold off on the toilet pics for now Malcom.

I remember HealyJ pointing out this exact thing based on a picture probably before the first one had been shipped. So the point there is some of you pussies just need to get a grip. A single cam failed in a bad placement which more than likely a Metolius or BD would have been fine in. Or not.

Did you ever load an origonal friend stem over an edge? People did all the time early on and they failed. Duh! You can't have the "Literature" listing every lil way your lil pussy asses can get the chop, cause it's too numerous to list.

Better you march your pussy ass's down to the gym and take up shuffleboard or knitting and just give up climbing. Climbing is dangerous. Damn dangerous. It is. Plan on it. Unlike those jackasses at CCH who can't seem to find their dicks to jack off right, Omega Pacific is all over this in a responsible and professional manner. Thanks dude.

Should they look at the material: yes. Has this cantted placement been tested before production? Duh- Michaellane said so: and in fact, Malcom said Trango tested it as well to get a baseline for their new Maxcam, but someother name brand cam shockingly did fail. (I wonder who's)

pwscottiv wrote:
In the end, I think the problem isn't one thing, but a combination of the basic design not being a very sound idea in the first place, no statement of operating limitations by the manufacturer, and problems with the manufacturing processes.

Maybe a material issue. Maybe not. It is a good idea, I love the range so give some credit as well. They had a single failure, in a placement where you would expect it. HealyJ had noted that you'd better be all over slinging them real well too, cause if it rotates at the wrong place...well, there ya go.

I'll still be climbing with my 3, and I don't like that they need more maintence to work well than other cams, but still love the range, and I'm keeping my Trangos as well, but pay attention to reading the Trango lit, cause you don't want to miss the range or you'll have issues.

Don't piss on this thing: it's a tool. It has limitations: like all products. Did you ever have a nut pull out? Leave those of us with half a brain who want a piece with amazing range keep ours on our rack.

Thats my thoughts. But I still climb with my Aliens too.

Edited to change my first line


(This post was edited by billcoe_ on Dec 20, 2007, 10:58 AM)


dingus


Dec 20, 2007, 4:57 AM
Post #167 of 388 (10563 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17392

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:
Who places cams poorly and hopes they align with the fall? No one. We place cams as best we can and expect them to withstand normal fall forces.

Good doublespeak though......

Yes considering the two sentences say the same thing essentially, very good doublespeak!

DMT


dingus


Dec 20, 2007, 5:02 AM
Post #168 of 388 (10563 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17392

Re: [k.l.k] Link Cam Report [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
I would not trust pro of any sort (aside from an angle) in those opening flares. The presumption is that if you are good enough to lead a 5.11 crack, you are solid enough to solo the first 20 feet of 5.9 or maybe 5.10a. But that start is technical and insecure, and the last time I did it (2000?), it seemed to me that the footholds had begun to polish. But like many if not most JTree routes, the first section of the climb is essentially a no-fall zone. I personally have never seen anyone take a real fall on pro in that section. Now we know how at least one such scenario turned out.

Very interesting post from someone 'intimately familiar' with the route.

DMT


dingus


Dec 20, 2007, 5:11 AM
Post #169 of 388 (10560 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17392

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

the_climber wrote:
dreday3000 wrote:
Bottom line? I ain't gonna buy linked cams no more.

Quite a silly thing to say don't you think?

As stated in Michaelís summary of the report; The nature of the placement and the mode of failure are completely intertwined.

As placement adjustment/failure was occurring the orientation changed, this is what lead to the failure.

I'm sorry you can't make that statement with any kind of faith. You think the placement failed in such a manner based upon someone else's analysis of after-the-fact scratch marks.

If OP has a decent degree of confidence in this analysis (and it appears they do) then the only conclusion I can see is this....

one helluva lot more sub-optimal-placement controlled testing (where the actual failure itself can be observed and analyzed) is needed.

I emphatically DO NOT agree with the notion that 'the cam was placed in a sub-optimal orientation and subsequently exploded upon impact - WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?'

I loke many other climbers do NOT expect my cams to explode.

I don't want any exploding cams on my rack, once identfied as such.

I'm not ready to cull the rack of my Links just yet. But I hope to see some published data real hard data and facts, from OP, based upon renewed testing of sub-optimal placement failures.

HOW MUCH FORCE, in this 30 degree out of plumb line pod.... to break this cam, exactly?????

How much force did the cam incur before it exploded. THAT is the pertinent question, isn't it?????

Scatch marks? Sorry, that just doesn't do it for this country boy.

Cheers
DMT


sandstone


Dec 20, 2007, 5:30 AM
Post #170 of 388 (10553 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324

Re: [billcoe_] I agree with domnic7 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Billcoe, Angry, and others have hit the nail squarely on the head -- the argument that OP is creating "risk" by designing and marketing a unique cam is just pure bullshit.

If you applied that bullshit logic to transportation you would be arguing that there should be no motorcycles, because cars are safer for beginners. If you applied it to kayaking, you'd be saying there should be no low volume playboats, because high volume boats are "safer". And on and on and on.... What a crock.

If you don't want Link Cams then leave them on the shelf -- no one is forcing anyone to buy or use them. I haven't bought any yet, but I'm damn sure going to buy some now, if for no other reason just to help Michael and OP offset a little of the costs they incurred to investigate this incident and report the results to the climbing community. How they handled this is a fine example for any company, and for any individual for that matter.

Malcolm, post the cleaning photos dude -- it would be a hoot!


wanderlustmd


Dec 20, 2007, 5:47 AM
Post #171 of 388 (10542 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8149

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

dingus wrote:

HOW MUCH FORCE, in this 30 degree out of plumb line pod.... to break this cam, exactly?????

How much force did the cam incur before it exploded. THAT is the pertinent question, isn't it?????

Scatch marks? Sorry, that just doesn't do it for this country boy.

Cheers
DMT

Assuming a 150lb climber, this fall (8 feet of rope and 2 feet above the piece) put 4.8 kn on the piece. According to a fall calculator I found through the site.

Like Michael said in the report, if the lack of possible rotation caused the cam to be effectively X-loaded, you can see how it might happen. Not that it gives one a warm fuzzy feeling.

On the plus side, at least we have a real life example of how these cams carry the potential to be much more sensitive to placement.


b1essen


Dec 20, 2007, 8:42 AM
Post #172 of 388 (10467 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 7, 2006
Posts: 1

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

I have been climbing on Omega for the last 12 years and have seen exceptional products come out of there shop. Micheal and Omega are pushing the standards in Product Development. Can't wait to see whats next. (Maybe a smaller version of the Link). If you spent more time climbing and less time blogging you might climb harder than 5.9.

Jessen


the_climber


Dec 20, 2007, 8:54 AM
Post #173 of 388 (10457 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 6142

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

wanderlustmd wrote:
dingus wrote:

HOW MUCH FORCE, in this 30 degree out of plumb line pod.... to break this cam, exactly?????

How much force did the cam incur before it exploded. THAT is the pertinent question, isn't it?????

Scatch marks? Sorry, that just doesn't do it for this country boy.

Cheers
DMT

Assuming a 150lb climber, this fall (8 feet of rope and 2 feet above the piece) put 4.8 kn on the piece. According to a fall calculator I found through the site.

Like Michael said in the report, if the lack of possible rotation caused the cam to be effectively X-loaded, you can see how it might happen. Not that it gives one a warm fuzzy feeling.

On the plus side, at least we have a real life example of how these cams carry the potential to be much more sensitive to placement.

I was curious about the calculation with the weight of a climber closer to my own. I took a guess and put it around 225# including gear. With the same 8feet rope out and 2 feet above last pro the calculator spat out an impact force of 7.18kN. Now for someone in my case that would put the fall force over half that of the rated strength of the cam, all in a less than ideal placement.

Even at 200# you'd step into the range of close to half the rated force of the placement, 6.4kN

Hypothetically the estimate of the fall was wrong and the fall really occurred 3 feet above the pro:

At 180# 6.3kN
At 200# 7.0kN
At 225# 7.9kN

You cannot expect peak performance from less than ideal situations. Trad gear on my local stone is a nightmare. You rarely find ideal placements without either working for them or without having an intimate knowledge of the local stone. There are a lot of flaring pods on many climbs which could produce similar situations to this and I have seen a number of cams badly mangled from aiding and falling on such placements. I guess my perspective is different that yours Dingus. I do see your side of the argument too, and respect you how you convey yourself and experiances through you posts.

Should the cam have just ripped? Likely, but freek shit happens. Will I give extra consideration when placing link cams, hell I have right from the first time I used one. I've never viewed or treated them as a typical cam. I wasn't there when it happened so all I have to work with is my own oppinions and training, the reports from OP, and confidence in the company. But hey, I'm just some out there crazy Canadian who still racks up the pins on a somewhat regular basis.


Partner gandolf


Dec 20, 2007, 10:17 AM
Post #174 of 388 (10401 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 119

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

Thanks to michaellane for responding to this issue promptly and responsibly.

The way I see it is: never trust anything 100% (which I never had). I own a Link Cam and will still use it. But, I will definitely be more careful with my placements in the future.


wanderlustmd


Dec 20, 2007, 11:21 AM
Post #175 of 388 (10349 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8149

Re: [b1essen] 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

b1essen wrote:
I have been climbing on Omega for the last 12 years and have seen exceptional products come out of there shop. Micheal and Omega are pushing the standards in Product Development. Can't wait to see whats next. (Maybe a smaller version of the Link). If you spent more time climbing and less time blogging you might climb harder than 5.9.

Jessen
Helluva first post cocksucker, welcome to the site. Based on your pic, maybe you can tell me when the next NSYNC record is coming out?

Merry Xmas, get cancer.

First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 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?
$80.06 (10% off)
$215.06 (10% off)
$89.96 (10% off)
$67.28 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook