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 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16 Next page Last page  View All


Partner dominic7


Dec 26, 2007, 7:52 PM
Post #226 of 388 (11799 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Posts: 18646

Re: [ja1484] jt512 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ja1484 wrote:
jt512 wrote:
I'm not a software developer at all -- never have even claimed to be. In fact, quite the opposite, as I have said before, my original reason for writing the killfile script was to teach myself Javascript. Nonetheless, the scripts I've written for this website have been downloaded 634 times to date.


*635



Back on Topic: Couple of good pertinent points, oft overlooked and unintuitive, being brought into the spotlight in this thread. First being an aspect of cam design that may cause them to fail in what a lot of people might consider a "good enough" placement, second being the attitude of the leader towards falling on gear.

I've pretty much always been a proponent of the idea that, in trad, your climbing acumen is your first safety system, along with your judgment, that keeps you from getting in over your head. The gear is the "backup parachute", as John Long once put it.

Sport climbing is a different matter, but I'm inclined to agree with the previous poster who commented that a lot of people may not readily perceive it as such, especially when drifting from bolts into leads on gear.

This begs the question: Should the distinction be more readily made between trad leading and sport leading, a la the distinction between indoor plastic pulling and outdoor climbing (which, while we're on it, aren't differentiated explicitly enough themselves in a lot of cases)?

I doubt it would hurt anything or anyone. Perhaps an attitude adjustment within the climbing community on this(ese) issue(s) may not be such a bad idea.

I think this thread raises serious issues that don't get enough airtime if they are as significant as they are being made out to be. There are so many ways a cam's lobes can be torsionally loaded it would be an interesting exercise to expound other examples of situations where this might arise.

For instance: shallow, parallel-sided or slightly flaring cracks. To get all four lobes in contact, the cam's stem needs to be placed perpendicular to the loading direction. Certainly a sub-optimal placement, but its not unreasonable to expect a beefy cam to hold a low fall-factor fall.

Is this a bad example of another situation where the sorts of forces that led to this failure are in play? Can someone provide a different one that helps illustrate things better?


(This post was edited by dominic7 on Dec 26, 2007, 8:10 PM)


Partner dominic7


Dec 26, 2007, 7:53 PM
Post #227 of 388 (11796 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Posts: 18646

Re: [dominic7] jt512 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

NF


Partner philbox
Moderator

Dec 27, 2007, 3:49 AM
Post #228 of 388 (11743 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [dominic7] jt512 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

badsanta has been removed from this forum pending removal entirely from rc.com.


nivlac


Dec 27, 2007, 4:38 AM
Post #229 of 388 (11740 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141

Re: [philbox] jt512 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
badsanta has been removed from this forum pending removal entirely from rc.com.

Philbox, for what? Did badsanta violate the rules? I think his exchange with the other dudes is amusing at best, harmless at worst.

Give the guy a break. The thread got hijacked but so what, another thread, another day on rc.com.


billcoe_


Dec 27, 2007, 6:27 AM
Post #230 of 388 (11722 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: [philbox] jt512 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks Phil.

Nivlac, come on dude, just go read what the dude was saying, how he was saying it, and where it was being said.

How about you do a search on Bad Santa (abbreviated BS) and show us 1 (one) valuable thing he said or 1 (one) actual climbing picture he posted.

This was a thread about a product breaking which may have implications for all cams out there if in fact flaring placements are shown to create tremendous forces on cams in a fall. BS drug an interesting, knowledgeable thread down into the shit by his half-assed, weak-sauce, bullshit, personal attacks.

BTW, if by chance you learn he was able to pull off a single instance of interesting thought, could you start a new thread on General, and not post it on this one, which should stick to the cam breakage issue.

Good riddance to Bad BS is what I say. Maybe he can use the free time he will have thinking about this and growing up some.


socalclimber


Dec 27, 2007, 7:17 AM
Post #231 of 388 (11707 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2432

Re: [billcoe_] jt512 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks Phil, I was gonna request he be booted from this thread so it can stay on target.


curt


Dec 27, 2007, 7:44 AM
Post #232 of 388 (11688 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18228

Re: [dreday3000] 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

OK--back on topic then, after our amusing little sidebar...

dreday3000 wrote:
...And what exactly do you mean by 'failure'? There are two different issues here as far as I'm concnered
1 ) The cam not holding because it was a sub par placement (still debatable as far as I'm concerned)
2 ) The cam exploding.

Normally the later doesn't follow the former. Right now the linked cams are the only cams I've heard of this type of thing happening...

Several of the more important posts in this thread have explained how (due to an amplification of forces) the latter could indeed result from the former. Additionally, rgold's link to the fairly recent Gunks fatality, caused by a cam failure, indicates that this phenomenon may not solely apply to Omega link cams.

Curt


murf


Dec 27, 2007, 8:20 AM
Post #233 of 388 (11663 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150

Re: [curt] 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

 
Does anyone know exactly which pod was used for the piece?

-Murf


Partner baja_java


Dec 27, 2007, 8:58 AM
Post #234 of 388 (11631 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 680

Re: 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

it's the one just below the pod that takes the good Orange Alien. the head of the Red #1 Link Cam doesn't fit into the same spot in the back of the pod that takes the Orange Alien, but fits the one just below that. you can tell from dirtme's posted photo.

i've gone up last saturday and taken photos, and will check couple more things this weekend. will post

oh, and i'm willing to take a test fall or two, if anyone has a red C4 or whatever else to spare

Sean


donald949


Dec 27, 2007, 5:05 PM
Post #235 of 388 (11504 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11359

Re: [baja_java] 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

Cool. Aftering looking at Dirtme's photos the other day, I was wondering if it would take a nut? From the photo, I'm guessing a #12 stopper sideways. Looking forward to your report. Thanks.
Don


socalclimber


Dec 27, 2007, 5:49 PM
Post #236 of 388 (11491 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2432

Re: [donald949] 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

I don't know about the nut idea. I've only aided it, so take my position with a grain of salt. I'm guessing here, but I'd hazzard a guess that the nut could shift and pop. Any old timers have a thought on this?

Robert


Partner baja_java


Jan 2, 2008, 8:30 AM
Post #237 of 388 (11227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 680

Re: 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

dirtme wrote:
I'm not a noob and I'm also trying not to blame anyone or any company. Shit happens. I could have put another piece in as a backup so the deck was preventable. Everything I say is just what I experienced, nothing more.

Thought that was refreshing. Thought that was cool.

And thanks to Michael from Omega Pacific for responding promptly and for being open and upfront with the process and the findings. Know it's not easy to address an issue like this in a public forum, with so many voices chiming in. I've a Link Cam too, and was concerned like others.

This isn't really a report or anything. I had placed an Orange Alien too near that spot on Left Ski Track, came off, and that piece caught me and held solid. I remember well what went through my mind as I led through that section, and can at least relate somewhat to how it felt while placing gear at that spot and climbing above that gear. I happen to still have that Orange Alien, BD Camalots, and now a Red #1 Link Cam. I was just curious. So went up and checked it out the Saturday before last and yesterday, with different partners donning puffies who were both nice enough to humor my fondness for gear fiddling.

A full view of Left Ski Track, the left of two left-slanting cracks on Intersection Rock, the one with the climber:


And the lower section in question, along with a view of the landing:


And the pod in question, which is the empty pod just below the Orange Alien:


Close-up of the Orange Alien placement, in a small rectangular slot in the back of the higher of the two flared pods:


Unobstructed view showing the small slot deep inside that pod:


Neither the Red #1 Link Cam nor the Green 0.75 Camalot could've been placed into that same spot; heads too wide.

Here's an unobstructed frontside view of the lower pod where the Link Cam was placed:


A few different angles to maybe give a sense of the curved flaring toward its back:




The lower cusp of that pod doesn't squeeze into a constriction or anything. Fairly smooth and rounded. A nut wouldn't work. A cam is the best option there or in the pod immediately above, especially if it were the 1st piece as the OP has stated. The pod is approximately 1.2" (across short axis of opening) at its widest and most rounded "pocket" area, with a flatter bottom lip surface that's somewhat chalk-slicked. If no gear is placed, that bottom lip is a usable hold.

Red Link Cam placed straight into the pod with stem perpendicular to the pod, i.e., with stem normal to the plane of the pod's oval opening:


Possible straight-in placements can range from sitting snuggly in the widest "pocket" area of the pod to tighter placements deeper into pod by pulling the links back and pushing the cam deeper into the back of the pod:


I gave the various placements hard downward yanks. The upper cam lobes pulled out half of the times (4 out of 8) for these straight-in placements. No lobe pull-out's for the wider-lobe-expansion placements in the "pocket" area closer to the lip. All of the pull-out's were with deep placements with the links pulled further back.

One aftermath shot of the upper cam lobes having pulled out:


Instead of hard yanks, I also leaned body weight slowly onto an in-deep placement, torquing the stem down with the upper cam lobes still in contact with the rock:



In the same pod, the Link Cam can also be placed with the stem down:


The stem-down placement went in with a nice fit. Not tricky or anything, compared to the straight-in placement. It's there. And the narrowing lower half of the pod can be seen to offer a nice constriction. The stem-down placement didn't budge when yanked, and I didn't see any reason it'd pull given how well the lobes sat inside the pod in that orientation, with stem straight down.

As seen also from nearly the same angle as in the OP's photo:


I also placed a Red #1 Camalot in that same pod, first with the stem down:


And as seen from nearly the same angle as in the OP's photo:


The cam sat snuggly in place and, despite the uneven and somewhat wide cam lobe expansions, didn't budge under hard yanks. Felt like it would hold a fall.

And then a straight-in placement:


Under hard yanks, the straight-in placements didn't budge 1 time and pivoted 3 times. Its upper cam lobes didn't outright pull out. The upper lobes slipped momentarily and pivoted the cam into a more downward position, about 2/3 of the way toward the orientation of the stem-down placement:


And leaning body weight slowly onto the straight-in placement without the cam pivoting, with the stem torquing down:


The Red Camalot could be placed only in the wider "pocket" area of the pod. It couldn't go in deeper into the back of the pod like a Link Cam with pulled back links could. When placed in that outer "pocket" area, the Link Cam's upper cam lobes didn't pull out either.

Please note that all placements described are mine, made by one individual, which may or may not be the same as the OP's.

There was earlier discussion about the flexibility of the Link Cam stem. Here are photos of a Red Link Cam, Red Camalot, and Orange Alien:



The shiny, rigid first quarter of the stem protruding out of the head axle joint of my Link Cam and Camalot both stick out longer than that of the Alien. The middle black portion of the Link Cam stem is the only flexible part. Likewise for the Red Camalot.

For comparison, the only cam I own that has a fully flexible stem all the way up to the head axle joint is the Wild Country Zero:


Hope this helps.

Sean


dingus


Jan 2, 2008, 8:39 AM
Post #238 of 388 (11217 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17390

Re: [baja_java] 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

baja_java wrote:
This isn't really a report or anything. I had placed an Orange Alien too near that spot on Left Ski Track, came off, and that piece caught me and held solid. I remember well what went through my mind as I led through that section, and can at least relate somewhat to how it felt while placing gear at that spot and climbing above that gear. I happen to still have that Orange Alien, BD Camalots, and now a Red #1 Link Cam. I was just curious. So went up and checked it out the Saturday before last and yesterday, with different partners donning puffies who were both nice enough to humor my fondness for gear fiddling.

That was huge Sean. Very enlightening (I think...). Nice work.

Cheers
DMT


Partner cracklover


Jan 2, 2008, 1:19 PM
Post #239 of 388 (11093 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9998

Re: [baja_java] 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

Superb post, baja_java! Lots of food for thought there!

One comment:
In reply to:
Under hard yanks {on the camalot}, the straight-in placements didn't budge 1 time and pivoted 3 times. Its upper cam lobes didn't outright pull out. The upper lobes slipped momentarily and pivoted the cam into a more downward position, about 2/3 of the way toward the orientation of the stem-down placement.

One note - because the camalot has less range, the lower lobes cannot be torqued as far back into the pod. But even so, I definitely wouldn't expect that cam to hold a fall, because of the torquing forces and the flare of the pod (keeping the forces RG highlighted in mind).

I come away from this thinking:
1 - because of the huge range of the LC, it will almost always be able to pivot better. In *most* cases where I have a blind placement, this is a good thing, though this particular placement with an increasing flare in the back of a pod is a counterexample.
2 - Any piece of gear has its weak point. In the LC, it's the connections between lobes. It stands to reason that, given a hard fall on a poor placement, this might be the failure mode.
3 - In many flaring pods, the LC may actually result in a *better* placement than a comparably sized "standard" cam. If you think about it, the degree to which the cams can contract is akin to the different size lobes on an Alien Hybrid.

Thanks again for the post. Really really helpful!

GO


vector


Jan 2, 2008, 4:58 PM
Post #240 of 388 (11020 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 88

Re: [baja_java] 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

baja_java wrote:
This isn't really a report or anything....

Hope this helps.

Sean

Yep, that really does help. You put in a lot of good work. Much appreciated.

Henry


healyje


Jan 2, 2008, 5:11 PM
Post #241 of 388 (11012 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [cracklover] 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

Baja - great post, thanks for going out and getting us a better look at it all.

cracklover wrote:
1 - because of the huge range of the LC, it will almost always be able to pivot better. In *most* cases where I have a blind placement, this is a good thing,

2 - Any piece of gear has its weak point. In the LC, it's the connections between lobes.

Cracklover, I would say your points 1 and 2 are in conflict and that exactly because those links are weak is why you don't want these cam to pivoting under any circumstance if you can avoid it.


shoo


Jan 2, 2008, 5:36 PM
Post #242 of 388 (10993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [healyje] 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

I disagree entirely. You WANT the cam to pivot into the direction of force as much as possible if torque is the reason for failure. If the cam doesn't pivot, it will remain in whatever orientation it was placed. If that happens to be a straight-in placement, that means that since the cam didn't reorient itself during a fall, there will be a great deal of torque on the lobes. However, if it does pivot, the cam will reorient itself in a direction that will minimize torque.

Anyone with some photoshop skillz would be appreciated to illustrate this.


healyje


Jan 2, 2008, 6:00 PM
Post #243 of 388 (10979 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [shoo] 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

shoo wrote:
I disagree entirely. You WANT the cam to pivot into the direction of force as much as possible if torque is the reason for failure. If the cam doesn't pivot, it will remain in whatever orientation it was placed. If that happens to be a straight-in placement, that means that since the cam didn't reorient itself during a fall, there will be a great deal of torque on the lobes. However, if it does pivot, the cam will reorient itself in a direction that will minimize torque.

I'm afraid you're just not getting it - the rotational forces associated with pivoting are exactly what's likely to break the links. If you can't place one of these babies so the stem is [statically] in line with the ancticipated forces of a fall then it's the wrong cam to choose for any such placement. Any rotation of the cam at all is a highly risky affair, particularly in any rock rougher than Creek splitters.

Never placing these cams in placements which allow stem leveraging and/or rotation should be the primary takeaway from anyone reading this thread.


dingus


Jan 2, 2008, 6:12 PM
Post #244 of 388 (10970 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17390

Re: [healyje] 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

I'm not sure what the take-away from this thread may be. Additional data would be nice, as opposed to speculation and opinion.

Cheers
DMT


giza


Jan 2, 2008, 6:12 PM
Post #245 of 388 (10970 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 315

Re: [healyje] 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

healyje wrote:
Never placing these cams in placements which allow stem leveraging and/or rotation should be the primary takeaway from anyone reading this thread.

Never placing these cams when your life depends on them should be the primary takeaway from anyone reading this thread.


healyje


Jan 2, 2008, 6:39 PM
Post #246 of 388 (10946 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

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:
I'm not sure what the take-away from this thread may be. Additional data would be nice, as opposed to speculation and opinion.

Cheers
DMT

Dingus, I have to say in this thread I'm somewhat disappointed in your take on it all. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but I have to say I expected far more in-front-of-your-face common sense from you. Exactly which part of the cam lobe links being weak and not amenable to rotating across rough terrain don't you get?

giza wrote:
Never placing these cams when your life depends on them should be the primary takeaway from anyone reading this thread.

Not at all, I view them as completely viable protection when used appropriately - the problem with this placement and with much of the thinking on this thread are the twin extreme views that either they SHOULD be reliable in EVERY possible placement and the idea that because it failed in a bad placement that they are unreliable - both views are the essence of denial and completely out of touch with the reality of the delivered product for very different reasons.


dingus


Jan 2, 2008, 7:07 PM
Post #247 of 388 (10914 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17390

Re: [healyje] 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

healyje wrote:
Exactly which part of the cam lobe links being weak and not amenable to rotating across rough terrain don't you get?

I read your opinion. More than once. Its an opinion. You back it up with NOTHING. Other than more opinion.

That's my opinion.

What I would like to see is the result of the additional testing OP seemed to indicate they were going to do.

Facts, in other words. To back up those strong opinions.

You can take that any way you wish dude.
DMT


shoo


Jan 2, 2008, 7:10 PM
Post #248 of 388 (10907 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [healyje] 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

healyje wrote:
I'm afraid you're just not getting it - the rotational forces associated with pivoting are exactly what's likely to break the links. If you can't place one of these babies so the stem is [statically] in line with the ancticipated forces of a fall then it's the wrong cam to choose for any such placement. Any rotation of the cam at all is a highly risky affair, particularly in any rock rougher than Creek splitters.

Never placing these cams in placements which allow stem leveraging and/or rotation should be the primary takeaway from anyone reading this thread.

Ah, what we have is a difference in definition. I was thinking of pivoting as the rotation of the cam before the cam lobes engaged with the rock, and just slip and reorient themselves. I absolutely agree that this is poor placement, but something that could happen out of inexperienced leaders or lack of an alternative.

In short, you're absolutely right.


jt512


Jan 2, 2008, 7:17 PM
Post #249 of 388 (10904 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21891

Re: [healyje] 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

I don't really understand all the hand wringing over this incident. The cam was placed so that the direction of loading was nearly in line with the cam axle, a textbook example of an improper placement. I would have no faith that any cam placed like that would hold a fall; and the consequences for the leader of one cam failing by coming apart, where another might merely have pulled out, are identical, the $80 replacement cost -- inconsequential if the climber hits the deck -- notwithstanding.

Jay


healyje


Jan 2, 2008, 7:17 PM
Post #250 of 388 (10903 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

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:
I read your opinion. More than once. Its an opinion. You back it up with NOTHING. Other than more opinion.

...

You can take that any way you wish dude.
DMT

I don't need to back it up with anything - all I have to do is look at one of them - that the reality presented when one does is escaping folks like you is beyond me, but c'est la vie. People continuing to break them in inappropriate placements like this one will be all the back up I need. It really doesn't require any more 'testing' to figure out the problem or its solution - neither is related to the materials or the design, but rather in climbers' behavior. One's ability to pattern match two realities when they pull one of these babies off their rack is all that's required - the product as purchased and any proprosed placement.

I'll take it with surprise like I said...

First page Previous page 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 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?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook