The real question is:

When will the bronze offsets become available once again?!

they've never not been available.

of course, the only place you can get them is the Yosemite Mountain Shop- the lady who owns the rights signed an exclusivity deal with the YMS to distribute them.

personally, i think that kind of sucks, but hey, it was her call.

Don't know why anyone wastes time and money to color-code nuts so I'm sorry to see that DMM caved in to the marketers ans graphic artists.
Mal

[Thread drift]
I actually find color coding very useful. When I get attuned to my rack, I am able to look at the feature on the rock and recognize which nut I'll be using. When I look down to grab the nut, I can easily see where it is. Given, I could probably do this almost as easily by looking at size, but it's a comfort I enjoy.

I also find the color coding useful when teaching new leaders. I can give suggestions for placements by color more easily than I can with numbers or relative sizes. The color helps with communications later on as well, because it's easier to remember what color the nut you placed was than the number. I can second and say "remember that big green nut you placed? It sucked," when I get to the top and have my partner actually remember it.

How much extra does it cost to anodize anyway? If it's doesn't cost much, is there any harm?
[/Thread drift]

We're taking a a hard look at discontinuing anodizing altogether.

Mal

The old HB's had colored tubing over the clip in loop that worked great.

....so did you slot a number 8 and climb on?

take a file to it...
and anyone else notice that the # 7 gets used much more often?

Too much has to come off. Dumping them as soon as I score some of the HB's.

I'll take 'em.

No, I had both an HB and DMM #9...

I guess I was really asking is what difference does it make? DMM changed either the physical size, or changed the numbering system. Either way it's the same geometry (so they claim at least). So instead of getting upset you could have just placed a numerically lower nut.

soooo what's the problem?

Least you can do is send them an email about it. You're not the first one to complain about the cable not staying put and DMM did make an alteration to their drilling to make the fit tighter but I don't know if that was done pre-production or mid-production.

The problem is that they did change the size in one dimension and, hence, the geometry. That in turn has changed how they place and the 'problem' is it did not improve them, rather it degraded them.

I like the DMM offsets, but I find the anodized finish too smooth,

How so, are you noticing consistant problems somehow with the geometry? Saying that the new stoppers are trash because they no longer fit this one specific placement that your HBs did is a bit much I'd think.

I don't think you're really getting the fine points here. This isn't a problem with 'consistency' as they are made with molds and every one that comes out of a mold is exactly the same size. The problem is the new mold designs are different than the HB's - i.e. the DMM Alloy Offsets are not the same size or geometry as the original HB Offsets.

DMM obviously either felt a compelling need to somehow revisit the design and contribute "value" to the design, or they felt there was a problem with the HB design, or they simply blew it. I suspect it wasn't the latter. Again, I simply find such tampering with perfection ill-advised, unnecessary, and unfortunate.

This is an extremely common occurance, and as an engineer I'll tell you it's damn hard not to tweak something when reverse engineering. They most likely have justifications of why they did what they did. Now if the change brings in a flurry of issues, say as the oversized holes, then I think it's easy to say it was a crappy design change. My point, again, is that saying the new geometry is crap because it no longer fits in one specific placement, on one specific route, at one specific crag, is a silly argument.

Thanks Chris, nice post. Glad to hear the brassies are coming too.

I must not have received one of the disfunctional #9s, as I've found many placements for it and expect to come across many more.

Please see user profile maldaly & sterlingjim for some of the better examples of the kind of rapport a manufacturer/distributor can foster here on RC.com.

Don't forget Michael Lane from OP as a good example.

iz troo

What about Madcock???

I don't think you're really getting the fine points here. This isn't a problem with 'consistency' as they are made with molds and every one that comes out of a mold is exactly the same size. The problem is the new mold designs are different than the HB's - i.e. the DMM Alloy Offsets are not the same size or geometry as the original HB Offsets.

Now, if you've never used either one before, that probably won't be an issue for you. But, if like me, and you've been using HB Offset Alloys since they were first made - it's a big f#cking deal. And even if you haven't used the original HB's, guess what, you still aren't, you're using something else - something that doesn't perform as well as the originals.

DMM obviously either felt a compelling need to somehow revisit the design and contribute "value" to the design, or they felt there was a problem with the HB design, or they simply blew it. I suspect it wasn't the latter. Again, I simply find such tampering with perfection ill-advised, unnecessary, and unfortunate.

...perhaps the poster whose size 9 wouldn't fit had an HB one that was a little under and the DMM one was a little over. In any case both versions would have been forged to the same tolerances.

healyje: try taking some calipers to the HB #9 and DMM #9 and comparing. Remember that the DMM will most likely fit where the HB will not - although having the sizing so close could be confusing - maybe leave it for aid routes.

Sorry I can't help re the offset sizing, it's difficult to comment further without seeing the units in the flesh.
Re anodising, I agree it'd be very useful for the climber if manufacturers tried to standardize sizing/colour coding. It would be a big ask, as sizing varies from company to company , but I reckon you could probably get a fair amount of concensus. We did this with Wild Country a few years ago with Wallnuts/Rocks, and both sets of Cams.
Chris
Brand Manager DMM

The Aluminium Offsets sized 7 to 11 have been available since earlier this year. I'd like to emphasise that these products have been forged on the same Forging Dies as they had previously been by HB. The Dies have be re furbished, but no deliberate action has been taken to alter the dimensions of this excellent product. Inevitably there will be Forging tolerances… can be + or -,(perhaps the poster whose size 9 wouldn't fit had an HB one that was a little under and the DMM one was a little over. In any case both versions would have been forged to the same tolerances.

try taking some calipers to the HB #9 and DMM #9 and comparing...

I will be to the new one and several of the old ones, but as I stated above the difference is significant. The DMM #9 didn't just 'not quite' slip through…

Anodizing? All you manufacturers need to get togehther and develop a standard or all of you should just follow the lead of the 800 lb. gorilla and call it good.

yes well when I rack up two different companies im not expecting them to perform identically, nor do i want them to. I like diversity in my rack so if i get to a placement where say a #9 offset doesnt fit, i have the option of trying something different, instead of having 2 #9 offsets, neither of which fit

DMM claims that they are using the exact same molds as HB. Though DMM and HB (r.i.p.) are different companies, molds don't magically change size when sold from one company to another... which begs the question: Why are two #9 nuts, supposedly produced from identical molds, not identical?

DMM claims that they are using the exact same molds as HB.

These nuts are based on the famed HB Alloy Offsets and were produced using modified versions of the original HB dies.

I'm not commenting on you guys' opnions, just throwing this out there.
Perhaps they used the same angles/proportions etc. but sized them to match the DMM nut range?

From the DMM website:

I'd like to emphasise that these products have been forged on the same Forging Dies as they had previously been by HB. The Dies have be re furbished, but no deliberate action has been taken to alter the dimensions of this excellent product.

Chris Rowlands
Brand Manager DMM

I like diversity in my rack so if i get to a placement where say a #9 offset doesnt fit, i have the option of trying something different, instead of having 2 #9 offsets, neither of which fit

Joseph: LOL, careful there buddy, starting to sound like a grumpy old person!

Healyje,

Is it possible that your #9 is just well worn? It seems to me that the old brass hbs would wear significantly quicker than a typical aluminum nut. Could this be the cause of your size differences?

Despite the suggestions to the contrary by one poster we are not so arrogant that we didn't recognise the value of the product in its current form.

OK my previous post said we used the same dies as had been used by HB. Apologies I've checked with our Toolroom guys again and it transpires we had to remake one size, the size 10 as it had a large crack in it so was unserviceable.

…No Drawings were available to us so we have generated these from existing HB forgings which we did rescue and information gleaned from old HB catalogs.

Healyje,

Is it possible that your #9 is just well worn? It seems to me that the old brass hbs would wear significantly quicker than a typical aluminum nut. Could this be the cause of your size differences?

As AB said, I would fully expect that the Brass HB's would be a different size to the alloy DMM's.

The discussion thus far has only been germane to the the alloys, and not the brass. Which have an interesting story all on their own of their journey from HB to DMM.

The discussion thus far has only been germane to the the alloys, and not the brass. Which have an interesting story all on their own of their journey from HB to DMM.

Chris,

Again, I do appreciate you guys picking up the line and it was certainly your perogative to attempt to add value with the various design and manufacturing changes.

However, I, and I suspect others, clearly would have preferred DMM reproduced the HBs as they were. The combination of anodizing, bare wire, different wire hole diameter, lack of epoxy, and set-only sales on top of the discovered size variance made purchasing a these go from a highly anticipated event to one of some frustration.

Particularly so with the #9. I bought the set to get a replacement #9 and twice now finding it unable to fit where an HB #9 goes is a bit of a drag. I'd be happy to mail it back so you folks can check it out, but I'd also ask that you guys do a running check of samples coming off your line against a couple of the originals as well to insure the calibration of your forging and finishing processes.

Again all I can say is please do return your number 9 so we can have a look at it.

As regards checks and calibration, this is already fully in place with all production processes. Throughout all our Forging operations we run SPC checks as well as First and Last off. This ensures that the job is set up correctly and sample forgings are regularly checked throughout the forging of that batch.They are checked against the current product drawing which we keep on file for every product we produce. All measurement instruments are themselves verified and calibrated on a regular basis.The drawings were produced from the original HB Forgings and I have checked a recent batch and we are indeed working within + or - 0.2mm.

Can we add a section in the new Routes Database to identify climbs that will take the old HB #9 but not the DMM #9?

How would you feel about a replacement cam having a significantly different range...?

Chris, as an past ISO9000 auditor I am familiar with the above quality measures. I'm certainly willing to chalk up fact that I, and at least one other person here, received pieces that are out of spec quite beyond 0.2mm as simply launch or first run anomolies while getting the product ramped up - but significantly out of spec they are. It isn't some peculiar inventiion of mine for novelty's sake, but rather an obvious design or quality issue of yours.

I don't have access to enough of your product to say whether it is simply a first run anomoly or whether inadvertant changes were made to the specs on at least the one of the pieces such that now they are being made within .02mm of the wrong size. Personally, I believe your quality processes are good, so for the moment am inclined to think the latter, but only you folks have access to enough product to determine that.

I will, however, send you mine.

I'd like to point out again that the above is bullshit.

It reads to me like you are accusing DMM of have poor quality control with their offset nuts.

I can think of multiple reasons why your piece is completely different. I've already given you one, DMM has given you at least one, if not two.

I think in fact, you should retract the above in good faith.

After putting some more thought into this, I'm pretty convinced the difference lies in the material change. Metals cool at different speeds which results in shrinkage inside the mold. This can vary greatly from one metal to another and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the old brass ones shrank a bit more than the aluminum ones.

Thoughts?

You can point out whatever you like, but the shipped out-of-spec pieces speak for themselves.

You need to read what I wrote again - that's not at all what I've said. What I did say was that either a) they had troubles bringing the line up, or b) the #9 is being produced to the wrong spec. Given I and someone else here have out-of-spec #9s it has to be one or the other.

It isn't some peculiar inventiion of mine for novelty's sake, but rather an obvious design or quality issue of yours.

Again, there can only be two reasons for a #9 DMM to be significantly out-of-spec from a #9 HB- either by design or due to execution errors.

'In good faith' is what I've been posting with in the hopes of either seeing this anomoly corrected or the design restored to the original HB #9 spec.

Standardly available shrink rules would appear to disagree with this theory:

Tin 1/12" per foot
Iron 1/8" per foot
Bismuth 5/32" per foot
Brass 3/16" per foot
Aluminum 3/16" per foot
Copper 3/16" per foot
Steel 1/4" per foot
Lead 5/16" per foot
Zinc 5/16" per foot

Good thinking though.

Show me where DMM says that their product would follow the HB specs (other than starting from the same molds)?

In my opinion targeting design or quality implies far more than "troubles" or "wrong spec".

In fact, the only way any of your arguements could be supported is if any DMM nuts are out of spec with each other. I stress again, DMM nuts.

Let yourself out of your mental box, you must be finding it confining. How about these:

#1 - Yours is out of spec with the rest of the #9 HB's out there.
#2 - HB had a #9 mold break and remade it. They have two generations of #9's and yours was from the first.

Do you think anyone really cares about your "#9 is out of spec issue"?

Again, how would you like a replacement cam to have a significantly different range? I frankly don't give a damn if you or anyone else cares about the issue - I do. Bottom line? Either DMM cares enough to faithfully reproduce the geometry of the HB Offsets or they don't. If they do and the several out-of-spec ones are an anomoly, then great, the problem is probably already fixed. If it is a case of the mold being out of spec then they have the choice of either fixing it or not - I would hope they would. If they don't really give a damn about the original HB geometry then there is little that I can say here that will make any difference.

This has all been done in an effort to replicate the original product dimensions, which themselves vary in the flesh and also in the product information from old catalogs.

So to reiterate we have not tried to change the size, variations in size on the originals were present anyway, and we are working within the tolerances we have stated.

Bottom line? Either DMM cares enough to faithfully reproduce the geometry of the HB Offsets or they don't.

I frankly don't give a damn if you or anyone else cares about the issue - I do.

I leave you to your bitter disappointment. I know that you'll never accept that you do not have the one true representation of the "#9 Nut", and that DMM has betrayed you with their disregard for your set of HB's. No, betrayed not just you, but the world with their callus disregard. I'm sure they'll have to take the line out of the market because of this. I mean, 3K sets in less than 6 months? At around $70 bucks a set? They would be nuts to continue making them.

I didn't realize there was a standardized way of measuring shrink. But thats pretty damn cool. Thanks for chiming in.

And while I don't particularly care for the other changes DMM has elected to make, I can live with them, but the geometry is non-negotiable.

"non-negotiable" ... You made this drama queen giggle.

I gotta offer you can't refuse...

I got this nut, see...
It don't fit no more...
You, ah, need tah fix your process, see?
We need a winnin' numba nine , capiche?

Don't make me climb wid out dat numba nine, I could break my legs...

This simply shows how badly you miss the point - either they are attempting to faithfully reproduce the HB geometry or they aren't. If they are then something either needs to be fixed or possibly already has been fixed. If they aren't interested in the original geometry then the entire thread is as irrelevant as most of your comments.

No, actually, *you* miss the point. The point is nobody gives a shit about your #9 issues.

I think you should send DMM both the new one and the old one so they can compare.

That's the truly useful comparison here.

Or clearly understand them in your case...