|
atlnq9
Jul 31, 2009, 1:19 AM
Post #176 of 241
(5108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 111
|
Thanks for the response.
This was what I expected since I also have never experienced a problem with a good cam placement. Keep making great gear!
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 31, 2009, 3:19 PM
Post #177 of 241
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
ptlong wrote: cracklover wrote: ptlong wrote: cracklover wrote: [Aric] had good reason for thinking that his first round of tests on the Metolius cam was invalid, and in subsequent testing he was unable to replicate the issue. This has given me enough pause to reconsider the issue. Does this mean you no longer believe it is easy to demonstrate the supposed issue in person? Do you now doubt that you got it to happen at the Gunks? What? Are you suggesting I made up my story? That would be a dispicable thing to have done, and I don't appreciate the insinuation. Look, the issue I raised is what it is. If you were in front of me with a cam, I could demonstrate it right now. Just because I can get it to happen by hand does not prove it's an issue in the field. That is a matter of reasonable debate. In reply to: In other words, should we disregard your previous statements about the issue as unreliable? Or is it merely the case that, in your mind, the risk of Aliens outweighs the risk of Mastercams? None of the above. The issue, for me at least, is that this cam has an unusual trigger mechanism which twists when weighted over edges. That has not changed. I'm relieved that the good folks at Metolius and Aric have both been unable to get the trigger to release in recent edge testing. That suggests that my concern may not relate to an issue in the field. That's encouraging, but certainly doesn't settle the case in my mind. GO No, I'm not attempting to paint you as a liar. No offense was intended, it's just that sometimes people are mistaken and that's not a crime. Aric made a mistake.
I see. Actually, I don't think Aric did make a mistake, but that's beside the point. As to whether the issue I raised (which others have seen, too) is a red herring or not, enough doubt has been raised to make me curious enough to want to try it again. If I can get it to happen again in real rock, I would be willing to take the time and trouble to record it. And if I can't, well that's a load off my mind.
But neither are likely to happen, because I don't own a MasterCam, and I'm not interested in buying one.
Oh, and it's quite nice to get Metolius' "official" take on this, even though it doesn't really change anything.
Cheers,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 31, 2009, 3:44 PM
Post #178 of 241
(5037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
All of this reinforces my opinion that, in so many ways, rigid-stem cams are stronger and safer (as long as there are appropriate tie-off opportunities).
If someone would make a modern rigid-stem that resolved some of the tie-off issues, I'd be linin' up to buy 'em!
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Jul 31, 2009, 4:02 PM
Post #179 of 241
(5023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
In reply to: I see. Actually, I don't think Aric did make a mistake, but that's beside the point.
I was referring to the sloppy fixture and the subsequent need to retract his statements.
In reply to: As to whether the issue I raised (which others have seen, too) is a red herring or not, enough doubt has been raised to make me curious enough to want to try it again. If I can get it to happen again in real rock, I would be willing to take the time and trouble to record it. And if I can't, well that's a load off my mind. But neither are likely to happen, because I don't own a MasterCam, and I'm not interested in buying one. Oh, and it's quite nice to get Metolius' "official" take on this, even though it doesn't really change anything.
Maybe there's still an issue. I'm curious about that too.
But something has changed. The initial claim that the issue is easily demonstrated by loading the cam over a horizontal has been replaced by the admission that it isn't so easy afterall, that so far nobody has been able document it actually happening. That's quite a shift.
|
|
|
|
|
squishy654
Jul 31, 2009, 4:11 PM
Post #180 of 241
(5009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2008
Posts: 137
|
If you do not own a Mastercam nor think you'll ever buy one, then why the hell are you involved in this discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 31, 2009, 5:01 PM
Post #181 of 241
(4983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
So does Aric's sloppy jig mean that my aliens are OK?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 31, 2009, 5:11 PM
Post #182 of 241
(4975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
In reply to: So does Aric's sloppy jig mean that my aliens are OK?
Different jig. The one I used for this was the one I use to look at walking issues and is simply a pair of 1/4" thick aluminum plates that are only held together on one side with a pair of #10-32 cap screws. The one used for pull testing is a pair of textured 1" thick steel plates with 3/4" threaded rod through the corners.
(This post was edited by adatesman on Aug 25, 2010, 2:17 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 31, 2009, 5:13 PM
Post #183 of 241
(4971 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
adatesman wrote: caughtinside wrote: So does Aric's sloppy jig mean that my aliens are OK? Different jig. The one I used for this was the one I use to look at walking issues and is simply a pair of 1/4" thick aluminum plates that are only held together on one side with a pair of #10-32 cap screws. The one used for pull testing is a pair of textured 1" thick steel plates with 3/4" threaded rod through the corners.
Does it move too?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 31, 2009, 5:23 PM
Post #184 of 241
(4958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 31, 2009, 5:25 PM
Post #185 of 241
(4953 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
adatesman wrote: caughtinside wrote: adatesman wrote: caughtinside wrote: So does Aric's sloppy jig mean that my aliens are OK? Different jig. The one I used for this was the one I use to look at walking issues and is simply a pair of 1/4" thick aluminum plates that are only held together on one side with a pair of #10-32 cap screws. The one used for pull testing is a pair of textured 1" thick steel plates with 3/4" threaded rod through the corners. Does it move too? No.
Were you prudent about getting confirmation from another tester before publishing alien results?
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 31, 2009, 5:29 PM
Post #186 of 241
(4946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
rgold wrote: If someone would make a modern rigid-stem that resolved some of the tie-off issues, I'd be linin' up to buy 'em!
Not sure what you mean. All my original Friends had Kevlar cord loops attached through the front hole by the cams and ran up to clip on the racking biner in tandem with the main webbing loop. I always considered that as solving all the tie-off issues.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 31, 2009, 6:49 PM
Post #187 of 241
(4908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
healyje wrote: rgold wrote: If someone would make a modern rigid-stem that resolved some of the tie-off issues, I'd be linin' up to buy 'em! Not sure what you mean. All my original Friends had Kevlar cord loops attached through the front hole by the cams and ran up to clip on the racking biner in tandem with the main webbing loop. I always considered that as solving all the tie-off issues.
Yeah, mine too. I never was very sure about how strong those tie-offs were, given that the holes in question were meant for lightening, at least originally. And, also originally, the hole edges weren't chamfered and so were rather sharp.
Then there was the orientation issue: in most set-ups, the cam could only be placed in one orientation in a horizontal because the other orientation would have the tie-off loop running over the cam retraction wires. Some folks managed to rig their cams with the tie-off loop strands running between the wires, but this depended rather critically on how much slack there was in the wires and couldn't always be done.
Finally, the cord in a single hole didn't account for all possible tie-off configurations. In some placements, you had to use the tie-off even though it draped over the crack edge, which in some cases could be rather sharp. Not to mention that this particular configuration loses the tremendous leverage advantages afforded by the stem resting on the lip. I often wondered whether it would have been possible to have some kind of ratched tie-off that could be slid up and down the stem...
Edit: A tied-off rigid stem cam in a horizontal crack will, in general, be far stronger than a flexible stem cam, probably the strongest cam placement possible, and probably by a considerable margin too. Rigid stem cam placements in badly flared horizontals stand a chance of holding where flexible stem cams would blow. There should also be corresponding advantages of a rigid stem in a constricted placement in which the cam can't orient properly---the situation Doug Phillips just mentioned as currently leading to very unreliable placements---if the cam can be placed so that the rigid stem is in firm contact with the bottom of the constriction
(This post was edited by rgold on Jul 31, 2009, 6:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 31, 2009, 7:35 PM
Post #189 of 241
(4880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I can't look because my original rack was stolen, but I don't recall any problematic inteactions between the cord and wires, and I'm pretty detailed and technical about my placements. But then I'm also old, all I really recall is that cording them opened up a whole new world of bomb horizontals.
I agree that cording up by the cams while leaving the stem straight and resting on the base had advantages over a single wired stem. But on the whole the trade-offs are reasonable and the resulting placements by and large acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher_Todd
Sep 14, 2009, 1:50 PM
Post #190 of 241
(4634 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 2
|
pfwein wrote: ...according to Metolius, they are OK to use in horizontals. (The instructions noted the outside cams should be on the bottom, which is why I recall seeing anything about this.) ... It would be very disturbing to learn that there is a problem in using them in horizontals; it would really be a "deal killer" for me. If anyone knows more, please post.
I used my blue Mastercam in a horizontal just last weekend, and had some issues. The outer cams were on the bottom. The rock sloped down from the lower lip of the horizontal crack, sort of over a little bulge (i.e., there was no sharp edge where the cam stem had to bend sharply, so the whole unit was contacting the rock). I placed the cam (at about eye level), added a 24" trad draw, and clipped the rope.
Just as I was about to move on past the piece, I noticed that one of the top, inner lobes, was not fully expanded and was not contacting the upper side of the horizontal crack. Crap!
I jammed in a C3 and clipped that. Then I wiggled the Mastercam back a little further, without touching the trigger, and that action freed the trigger assembly to allow the unengaged lobe to expand and contact the rock.
Sure, this might have been my bad placement, but it was a pretty elementary horizontal. I'm perplexed about the timing of the lobe retraction, but I feel it must have occurred when I weighted the cam stem with the trad draw and then the rope (this was pretty far into the pitch, so a lot of rope was out, with a small amount of rope drag in addition). That little bit of added weight must have bent the cam stem and trigger assembly downward sufficiently to bend/twist the trigger against the rock face below the placement, thereby reopening that lobe (?).
I'm getting rid of all three of my Mastercams after this experience. Too bad, 'cause I was jazzed about them until now.
|
|
|
|
|
squishy654
Sep 14, 2009, 3:38 PM
Post #191 of 241
(4592 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2008
Posts: 137
|
I just placed a blue in a similar situation yesterday, in order to redirect a belay, I stuck it in blind and it worked perfectly. I belayed three people up through the redirected belay and it had tension the whole time, never popped and in fact I was told it was hard to remove, I would have fallen three times on it....go ahead and get rid of them, I'll give you my address if you can't find anyone to take your "defective cams"
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 14, 2009, 4:28 PM
Post #192 of 241
(4565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
squishy654 wrote: I just placed a blue in a similar situation yesterday, in order to redirect a belay, I stuck it in blind and it worked perfectly. I belayed three people up through the redirected belay and it had tension the whole time, never popped and in fact I was told it was hard to remove, I would have fallen three times on it....go ahead and get rid of them, I'll give you my address if you can't find anyone to take your "defective cams"
Using a blind microcam placement as your redirect is very foolish, I don't care what brand it is.
|
|
|
|
|
squishy654
Sep 14, 2009, 4:44 PM
Post #193 of 241
(4551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2008
Posts: 137
|
I agree, so is climbing, you better sell all your gear...you're just gonna die...
I don't feel I need to explain, but I will add that there was also two equalized cams connected to the rope redirecting the belay with locking biners. The little cam was placed to simply get the rope out of a rock spitting crack. This was on an obscure alpine type climb which I needed to clean and the rope was knocking off rocks onto my partners below, so like everything in climbing, you shouldn't speak like you were there...till you are...point is the piece held perfectly in a similar situation that was described above (but under load), sorry if I'm trying to offer a second opinion, but I have not observed what people keep talking about, and if I did Metolius would hear about it, I would not irresponsibly post it here, spreading unfounded rumors about the safety of someones product...
(This post was edited by squishy654 on Sep 14, 2009, 4:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 14, 2009, 5:15 PM
Post #194 of 241
(4923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
squishy654 wrote: I agree, so is climbing, you better sell all your gear...you're just gonna die... I don't feel I need to explain, but I will add that there was also two equalized cams connected to the rope redirecting the belay with locking biners. The little cam was placed to simply get the rope out of a rock spitting crack. This was on an obscure alpine type climb which I needed to clean and the rope was knocking off rocks onto my partners below, so like everything in climbing, you shouldn't speak like you were there...till you are...point is the piece held perfectly in a similar situation that was described above (but under load), sorry if I'm trying to offer a second opinion, but I have not observed what people keep talking about, and if I did Metolius would hear about it, I would not irresponsibly post it here, spreading unfounded rumors about the safety of someones product...
Easy there squishy. No I wasn't there, I was just responding to what you wrote in your post. It sounds like you made a mastercam placement that statically held less than bodyweight and you pronounced it bomber because it was hard to remove, despite never actually seeing the placement because you put it in blind. Well that settles it, case closed as far as I'm concerned. Way to test it out for us and report back.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 14, 2009, 6:24 PM
Post #195 of 241
(4889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
squishy654 wrote: I just placed a blue in a similar situation yesterday, in order to redirect a belay, I stuck it in blind and it worked perfectly. I belayed three people up through the redirected belay and it had tension the whole time, never popped and in fact I was told it was hard to remove, I would have fallen three times on it....go ahead and get rid of them, I'll give you my address if you can't find anyone to take your "defective cams"
Allow me to express your argument, in the context of this thread, succinctly: A blindly placed Master Cam once held less than body weight. Therefore, there are no problems with the design of Master Cams.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Sep 14, 2009, 6:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Sep 14, 2009, 7:41 PM
Post #196 of 241
(4850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
I would not defend Squishy's logic (such it was), but I also have a problem with the following:
Christopher_Todd wrote: That little bit of added weight must have bent the cam stem and trigger assembly downward sufficiently to bend/twist the trigger against the rock face below the placement, thereby reopening that lobe (?). I'm getting rid of all three of my Mastercams after this experience. Too bad, 'cause I was jazzed about them until now.
With all due respect to Mr. Todd, who is just trying to be helpful I assume, I don't think he really knows what must have happened.
How did he exclude other possibilities (e.g., cam walking), which at least to me seem more likely than his conclusion that he has exposed a flaw that others skilled in cam testing have been unable to replicate?
If there is a problem with MasterCam trigger assemblies retracting the cams in some configurations, it seems like there has to be a way to identify those configurations. I just don't see that many variables in play. But Perhaps I'm overlooking something.
|
|
|
|
|
mtl_climber
Sep 14, 2009, 8:27 PM
Post #197 of 241
(4824 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2006
Posts: 35
|
Vegastradguy,
Did Metolius give a response about the concern of the MasterCam trigger that has been grought here in the forum ??
I prefer to wait for a statement from them before bying a set of to replace my aliens. They may end up release a modified one.
Thanks
(This post was edited by mtl_climber on Sep 14, 2009, 8:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Sep 14, 2009, 9:02 PM
Post #198 of 241
(4801 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
mtl_climber wrote: Vegastradguy, Did Metolius give a response about the concern of the MasterCam trigger that has been grought here in the forum ?? I prefer to wait for a statement from them before bying a set of to replace my aliens. They may end up release a modified one. Thanks
Yes, see post # 177 in this thread.
(This post was edited by pfwein on Sep 14, 2009, 9:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
waltereo
Sep 15, 2009, 3:57 AM
Post #199 of 241
(4717 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 151
|
Thanks !
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 15, 2009, 5:15 PM
Post #200 of 241
(4671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
squishy654 wrote: I agree, so is climbing, you better sell all your gear...you're just gonna die... I don't feel I need to explain, but I will add that there was also two equalized cams connected to the rope redirecting the belay with locking biners. The little cam was placed to simply get the rope out of a rock spitting crack. This was on an obscure alpine type climb which I needed to clean and the rope was knocking off rocks onto my partners below, so like everything in climbing, you shouldn't speak like you were there...till you are...point is the piece held perfectly in a similar situation that was described above (but under load), sorry if I'm trying to offer a second opinion, but I have not observed what people keep talking about, and if I did Metolius would hear about it, I would not irresponsibly post it here, spreading unfounded rumors about the safety of someones product...
No, I concur, if you think that a blind placement that never had to hold body weight and might not have been in the same failure situation is proof that the failure mode doesn't exist, you really are an idiot.
And anyway, in what universe can you not tell your second to wait for a second while you place a redirect? It takes 30 seconds, tops. There's NO REASON to place a redirect blind. I mean, its not like you don't already have a few good pieces you can hang on while you do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
