|
jeepnphreak
Feb 17, 2010, 9:32 PM
Post #26 of 35
(710 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2008
Posts: 1259
|
as Soon as I rob a bank or win the lottery I want a set of black diamond cobras, 1 adze and 1 hammer
(This post was edited by jeepnphreak on Feb 17, 2010, 9:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
photo_trev
Feb 17, 2010, 11:16 PM
Post #27 of 35
(687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2008
Posts: 15
|
Going to MEC tomorrow to get a new rope. and maybe a Reverso 3. Stoked.
|
|
|
|
|
sp00ki
Feb 18, 2010, 6:52 PM
Post #28 of 35
(659 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2009
Posts: 552
|
Arc'teryx R320, this time small.
Drawback of losing weight...
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Feb 18, 2010, 7:21 PM
Post #29 of 35
(645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
j_ung wrote: I'm tossing around the possibility of Totem Cams.
I don't like the Totem Cam design much. All of the extra complexity of a Link Cam with none of the range. Way too many finicky parts. I am betting they will not be cheap.
The advantage of holding in larger downward flares is moot because nobody places cams at the current limit for holding downward flares (about 28 deg for most cams) because if it slides a tiny amount, the cams will probably fall out and it just plain looks scary.
And when you get up to the 40 deg that they claim is possible, geometry is not the limiting factor, but friction is. Each cam is pushing on the rock at 20 deg from perpendicular. If all rock could hold at 20 deg, we would see more regular cams with a 20 deg cam angle (which would also be able to hold a 40 deg flare)
The only real new advantage of their off-centre loading design is greater holding power, and I think that is kind of moot as well, because who really wants greater holding power? A cam either holds or it doesn't. If it holds, you have enough holding power. If it doesn't you don't. Most cams have enough and more doesn't help you. They should have ditched the logarithmic spiral and swapped holding power for range.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Feb 18, 2010, 9:24 PM
Post #30 of 35
(629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Rudmin wrote: I don't like the Totem Cam design much. All of the extra complexity of a Link Cam with none of the range. Way too many finicky parts. I am betting they will not be cheap.
They are not an extended range cam. They do cost extra.
In reply to: The advantage of holding in larger downward flares is moot because nobody places cams at the current limit for holding downward flares (about 28 deg for most cams) because if it slides a tiny amount, the cams will probably fall out and it just plain looks scary.
Nobody places cams at the limit of downward flare because it is the limit of downward flare. The Totem cams move the limit.
In reply to: And when you get up to the 40 deg that they claim is possible, geometry is not the limiting factor, but friction is. Each cam is pushing on the rock at 20 deg from perpendicular. If all rock could hold at 20 deg, we would see more regular cams with a 20 deg cam angle (which would also be able to hold a 40 deg flare)
There is a video on the Totem cams website of the things being thoroughly bounce tested in extreme flairs.
In reply to: The only real new advantage of their off-centre loading design is greater holding power, and I think that is kind of moot as well, because who really wants greater holding power? A cam either holds or it doesn't. If it holds, you have enough holding power. If it doesn't you don't. Most cams have enough and more doesn't help you. They should have ditched the logarithmic spiral and swapped holding power for range.
The greater holding power means they will hold in more marginal placements.
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Feb 18, 2010, 9:42 PM
Post #31 of 35
(621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
What kind of marginal placement are you considering here?
The only situation where more holding power is better is if the rock is slippery enough that a normal cam will slide.
If it is marginal as in soft rock, or behind a flake, then that extra holding power is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Feb 18, 2010, 9:45 PM
Post #32 of 35
(618 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Rudmin wrote: What kind of marginal placement are you considering here? The only situation where more holding power is better is if the rock is slippery enough that a normal cam will slide. If it is marginal as in soft rock, or behind a flake, then that extra holding power is a bad thing.
I mean flared, awkward, uneven, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
phang_nga
Feb 20, 2010, 2:29 AM
Post #33 of 35
(579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2006
Posts: 326
|
Definitely getting a few of the smallest ball nuts for the many tiny flared cracks in the limestone here in southern Thailand.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 20, 2010, 3:02 PM
Post #34 of 35
(554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Rudmin wrote: j_ung wrote: I'm tossing around the possibility of Totem Cams. I don't like the Totem Cam design much. All of the extra complexity of a Link Cam with none of the range. Way too many finicky parts. I am betting they will not be cheap. The advantage of holding in larger downward flares is moot because nobody places cams at the current limit for holding downward flares (about 28 deg for most cams) because if it slides a tiny amount, the cams will probably fall out and it just plain looks scary. And when you get up to the 40 deg that they claim is possible, geometry is not the limiting factor, but friction is. Each cam is pushing on the rock at 20 deg from perpendicular. If all rock could hold at 20 deg, we would see more regular cams with a 20 deg cam angle (which would also be able to hold a 40 deg flare) The only real new advantage of their off-centre loading design is greater holding power, and I think that is kind of moot as well, because who really wants greater holding power? A cam either holds or it doesn't. If it holds, you have enough holding power. If it doesn't you don't. Most cams have enough and more doesn't help you. They should have ditched the logarithmic spiral and swapped holding power for range.
Have you watched the video? No offense, but I think it does a pretty decent job of debunking several of your points. Totem cams are a simpler design than most SLCDs (especially Link Cams), they're utterly flexible at the head (again thanks to the DLCD design), the dual cable allows for use of only two cams in a bottoming vertical placement, and the increased holding power is a huge plus for such spots, too. Individual articulation means that you'll almost never have an irregular placement in which one or more lobes are completely disengaged (DLCD, again). They also have an obscenely narrow head width, and might just end up being the go-to cam for pin scars. I have to say, on paper these things are f-ing rad. I've held them in my greasy hands, too, and was similarly impressed.
All that remains, IMO, is to hear first-hand accounts of them being used on rock.
|
|
|
|
|
chrisJoosse
Feb 21, 2010, 12:16 AM
Post #35 of 35
(527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2009
Posts: 150
|
It's getting about time for a new rope. Somethin' 70m/bi-pattern. And those dragon cams sure look spiffy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
