|
jimfix
Mar 1, 2005, 1:21 AM
Post #1 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 314
|
Ok looking on their site, it looks like trago is onto a winner with max cams. I know thier not out till may, but has anyone played with em?
The moving axle looks odd, I wonder if they really will replace C4s?
|
|
|
|
|
climb_high4life
Mar 1, 2005, 1:28 AM
Post #2 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2005
Posts: 60
|
Haven't played with them but they look sweet. The look similar to Omega Pacific Link Cams except alot smoother in action. They look a lot nicer that flex cams.
I haven't used flex cams myself. I am personally a fan of C4s :D
|
|
|
|
|
tattooed_climber
Mar 1, 2005, 1:29 AM
Post #3 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4838
|
:deadhorse:
thats what this topic is....
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Mar 1, 2005, 1:33 AM
Post #4 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
maculated played with them at the trade show and wrote a review here: http://rockclimbing.com/articles/index.php?action=show&id=2064. They also won Climbing Magazine's Editor's Choice Award and will be reviewed in the next issue.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 1, 2005, 1:33 AM
Post #5 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Stay tuned for a complete review of the Max Cam in the rockclimbing.com Gear Guide. It'll probably hit the front page in May; just in time for their debut on the shelves.
|
|
|
|
|
korporal
Mar 1, 2005, 1:57 AM
Post #6 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 175
|
WARNING: Everything that is metioned in this post is based off of information that has not ben confirmed.
They look sweet. The only downside that I can find is that the primary axel will get in the way in medium to shallow placements. After watching the animation of Trango's website I noticed something was off. It took me a while but then it hit me. When the cam is retracted past one third of the way the primary axle is sticking out past the part of the lobes that will be in contact with the rock. It doesn't look like it will be that much of a problem until the cam is more than half retracted. When the cam is retracted more than three quarters of the way it looks like it would fit in only deep placements. If the lower half of the range is unusable, why bother with the extra price, and I'm guessing weight, that comes along with the Max Cams?
|
|
|
|
|
nedsurf
Mar 1, 2005, 3:01 AM
Post #7 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Posts: 387
|
building on the initial design critique of the primary hinge/axis getting in the way of shallow placements, the asymetrical stem could be a bit troubling for horizontal placements. I would like to see if putting the stem at the top on that sort of placement would be not unlike a horiz. hex placement.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Mar 1, 2005, 3:19 AM
Post #8 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
I would be a bad intrepid journalist if I had not noticed this shallow placement issue, so I watched the video you're talking about. I was thinking, "Man, something that obvious, I'd have noticed."
So I dug around in my outtake photos and found these:
http://www.maculated.com/images/2.jpg - 25% retracted
http://www.maculated.com/images/1.jpg - 80% retracted
So, as you see, the video doesn't do the cam justice.
Weight, well, see for yourself:
Camalot C4: .5 - 97 g 1 - 134g 3 - 201 g
Max Cams: .5 - 85 g 1 - 132g 3 - 201 g
Why? Because it's on a tri-axle system. Not a dual axle. When you get a chance to see this, it actually cuts down on weight because the rod that runs through the Camalot is now parsed because of the unique engineering of the cam.
I mean, come now, I would not have made such a glowing review and tell you to get these only if I wasn't 100% confident that they were an improvement on the C4. My rep's at stake.
Edit: smoking crack on the ratio thing. Thanks. Eitherway - the range is wider.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Mar 1, 2005, 3:24 AM
Post #9 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
korporal & nedsurf:
Good eyes. There will be some shallow pockets where the main axle interferes with the placement. I don't know how many fo those types of shallow placements exist outside of the Gunks, though. As far as weight goes, they're listed on our website at http://www.trango.com/prod.php?id=113. Click on the Cam Specs link. I think you'll find that few cams are lighter. As for horizontals, one of our tests is to pull the cam in directions other than perpendicular to the line between the contact points of the cam lobes on the rock which is the way the CE spec determines. We've pulled 25 degrees off perpendicular in both directions and the cams hold. You'd be surprised what cams DON"T pass this test. Most stable placements in horizontals is the same as any four cam; with the outer lobes down. As always, it's good to carry a selection of gear because nothing works everywhere.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
eyecannon
Mar 1, 2005, 3:29 AM
Post #10 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2004
Posts: 517
|
I thought C4's were 2:1 also
|
|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Mar 1, 2005, 9:48 AM
Post #11 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
Malcom, did you guys think about making cams out of titanium?
May be a test sample?
Besides the cost are there any other negatives? If I remember correctly somebody was making a titanium replica of the friends.
Since you guys seem to be working on the titanium version of the cinch may be cams are not out of the question either
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Mar 1, 2005, 12:07 PM
Post #12 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
The true test will be actually climbing with them and seeing how they *feel*.
On paper, everything about WC Zeros suggests they should be better than Aliens, and yet, many still prefer the feel of Aliens.
On paper, the Splitter Gear 2 cams seem like a brilliant idea. But I've climbed with them, and they just feel awkward.
Of course, on paper, the Cinch looks like a superior belay device, and, having used it extensively, I can say it is.
But don't count BD out yet... I hear they have an interesting new cam in the works. And surely there will be some response from Petzl or somebody to the Cinch.
|
|
|
|
|
smearhound
Mar 1, 2005, 1:29 PM
Post #13 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2004
Posts: 83
|
In reply to: The true test will be actually climbing with them and seeing how they *feel*.
Good point. I'm a C4/Aliens kinda guy and one of the reasons I like that gear is because it just feels bomber. Therefore, I don't mind a little extra weight. (I also don't have an Indian Creek-size rack so I can afford to indulge a bit.)
I've never handled any of Trango's cams although I've always been interested in the flexcams on paper. That the maxcams appear to be moving to the front of the new cam design pack suggests that they are worth a serious look.
In reply to: But don't count BD out yet... I hear they have an interesting new cam in the works.
Anybody know more about this? I'm very curious, especially considering I blew a wad of cash on C4's this winter.
Seems like this year's cams are like every year's computer equipment: buy it just when you've decided what's best and what you can afford and a seemingly better model comes out the next month.
|
|
|
|
|
jimfix
Mar 1, 2005, 7:39 PM
Post #14 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 314
|
norushnomore
In reply to: Malcom, did you guys think about making cams out of titanium? May be a test sample? Besides the cost are there any other negatives? If I remember correctly somebody was making a titanium replica of the friends. Since you guys seem to be working on the titanium version of the cinch may be cams are not out of the question either
Talking from no cam making experience I can think of two reasons.
A: Cost. Cams are expencive as it is, and with the increased cost of materials and machining gear, Ti isn't an atractive option for a competitive cam. Even as a self confessed gear whore, im not going to splash out more that 10-25% extra to shave off the minimal weight gains.
B: Al is soft, so it bites into the rock, giving better hold. Also, I belive Ti is more brittle, once agian making Al the metal of choice.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 1, 2005, 7:44 PM
Post #15 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: We've pulled 25 degrees off perpendicular in both directions and the cams hold. You'd be surprised what cams DON"T pass this test.
Well now! My sphincter just tightened! :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Mar 1, 2005, 7:54 PM
Post #16 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
Good Q's about Ti cams. There were some Russian ones (copies of the original extruded Friends) around a few years ago and they were way strong but heavy and crude. Ti can be alloyed in a myriad of ways, just like aluminum or steel so it's not accurate to say that is is harder, more malleable, or whatever. The only rule of thumb that I know that works all the time for Ti: It is heavier than aluminum and weaker than steel; and its corollary, Ti is lighter than steel and stronger than aluminum. The question to ask for climbing gear is where does it fall on the strength:weight scale. Ti carabiners, for instance have been tried but failed the market test. They were heavier and more expensive than aluminium 'biners which are strong enough and cheaper. If aluminum products are breaking, then we would need to look towards another material, regardless of the weight. We're not there yet with cams. Aluminum, if correctly used, is strong enough. Ti bikes are nice because of the material has a nice smooth "feel" and is very resistant to flex fatigue or stress cracking, characteristics that occur in some degree in both aluminum and steel. Since climbing gear doesn't really need to have a "feel" and flex isn't an issue (at least if it's made right) aluminum is still the material of choice in most situations.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Mar 1, 2005, 8:00 PM
Post #17 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
In reply to: In reply to: The true test will be actually climbing with them and seeing how they *feel*. Good point. I'm a C4/Aliens kinda guy and one of the reasons I like that gear is because it just feels bomber. Therefore, I don't mind a little extra weight. (I also don't have an Indian Creek-size rack so I can afford to indulge a bit.)
That's another reason why I decided to love the Max Cam - I don't like the feel or look or anything else of the other cams on the market. Trango's got that covered, too.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 1, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #19 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: In reply to: But don't count BD out yet... I hear they have an interesting new cam in the works. And surely there will be some response from Petzl or somebody to the Cinch. i believe that petzl is working on a new grigri, or something similar. ive also been told by a guide(?) that bd is working on a new design for their smaller camalots. something funky i think, like a tcu but with a single stem. just dont quote me on it, seems like just a rummor...
The C3.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Mar 1, 2005, 9:48 PM
Post #20 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
I had my mind set on bying a few C4 camalot but then I read the glowing reviews and yet i wonder about the "real range" and the usefulness of the max cam
I found at http://www.trango.com/pdfs/CamSpecs.pdf 2 very interseting tables that elates max cam to regular cams made by Trango.
It seems to me that to have one set of each cam type would be a very interesting proposition vs. having doubles of one type.
This way, you would be able to use "clasisc" cams in shallow placements ad yet have more versatility in normal placements.
Nonetheless, it seems that the more the cam is closed, the more the triple axis is "protuding". Has anyone figure the range of the cam in shallow placements ?
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Mar 1, 2005, 9:50 PM
Post #21 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
I think these are my new cams... If I'm gonna buy, It's most likely going to be these...
Hosh.
|
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Mar 3, 2005, 4:26 PM
Post #22 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
In reply to: As for horizontals, one of our tests is to pull the cam in directions other than perpendicular to the line between the contact points of the cam lobes on the rock which is the way the CE spec determines. We've pulled 25 degrees off perpendicular in both directions and the cams hold. You'd be surprised what cams DON"T pass this test. Most stable placements in horizontals is the same as any four cam; with the outer lobes down. As always, it's good to carry a selection of gear because nothing works everywhere. Mal
When you say 25 degrees off of perpendicular do you mean toward one side (I'm thinking about diagonal cracks) or in the vertical plane. Just want to be sure because it seems a bit important and I'm not sure what you are trying to convay by "perpendicular to the line between the contact points". If the pull was ofset horizontally were the cams "artificially" prevented from rotating in the test above?
Thanks for the info above and I'll definetly check out the Max's when they come out.
|
|
|
|
|
stashyboy
Mar 18, 2005, 9:49 PM
Post #23 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2004
Posts: 33
|
8^) Well it's not 'rumor' anymore....Just got my issue of Climbing today and yes the feature gear review is cams. The Trango Max Cam looks cool and seems like it will work but I want to hear from folks who have actually placed, climbed, fallen on, and cleaned 'em....I guess that will take a few more months until they have hit the retail market and they get some time on the rock.
-M
|
|
|
|
|
naitch
Mar 18, 2005, 10:17 PM
Post #24 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 539
|
I didn't care for the Trango ad in that same issue if I understood it right. They had a diagram of it in a narrow crack and a hand-size crack. In the hand-size crack, the cam was almost fully expanded and only the very tips of the cam were touching the wall. I would'a thot that the maufacturer would not use a diagram where there was so little contact with the wall - unless it was in a passive placement which they aren't made for. Hmmm
|
|
|
|
|
blakester
Mar 18, 2005, 10:36 PM
Post #25 of 53
(12878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 142
|
In reply to: As for horizontals, one of our tests is to pull the cam in directions other than perpendicular to the line between the contact points of the cam lobes on the rock which is the way the CE spec determines. We've pulled 25 degrees off perpendicular in both directions and the cams hold. You'd be surprised what cams DON"T pass this test. Mal
Myself and some others would LOVE to get a little more info or details about tthese tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
