My only point here is that climbing gear has limitations. And sometimes one of those limited pieces is the ONLY piece that will work in that spot, I accept the limitation and try to plan around it (get another piece in ASAP!)

What we all need to know of course is exactly WHAT those limitations are, for Link cams that is. Not knowing is far worse than knowing.

DMT

whats the update?

For those of you who haven't tried link cams, or tried them enough not to get used to them, this is just another ridiculous piece of gear that will fail because it is over-complicated.

For those of us who have seen our climbing change because of unique and broad range of placements made possible by link cams this is both sad and scary. If link cams go away, this will be a big step backwards, IMO.
-Kate.

Link cams are a great, versatile piece of gear, but if there is a risk of breakage in some applications based on design, climbers should know about it, even if it damages OP's stance in the market. I'm not at all saying that OP should be burned at the stake for making a "less perfect" unit...but I'd also like to avoid suprises with gear.

Wanderlustmd - in general, my response to this and similar comments relative to the [obvious] limitations to the Link cam design is that it isn't rocket science, but rather just a matter of opening your eyes - one quick glance tells you all there is to know.

I think OP is to be commended for this exploration past the boundaries of convential cam design and the odds are pretty damn good this is a state-of-the-art application of our current commercial materials science. But the odds are equally good that 'state-of-the-art' in materials science currently isn't good enough to produce an indestructible, segmented lobe cam at a weight most folks would be willing to carry. One look at them also tells you OP designers and engineers worked their asses off and agonized back-and-forth over every .001 of an inch on the things.

Personally, I think it's a bold design and business move on OP's part - but it's all of us, and not them, who are solely responsible for our determination of the fitness of these devices for any given application on lead. Funny how this sort of thing really brings out the generational difference in climbers and probably highlights to just what extent 'modern' climbing has become another well-integrated commodity / consumer-oriented activity.

Seriously, why go through all that expense and procure that much expertise when we can find a guy who can take one look at a cam and tell you it is going to explode?

OK Healy.Now tell us...how many failed Aliens vs.how many in use? And how many failed Link Cams vs. how many in use?

No problem, happy to help out. So, basically, this really is a generational 'Emperor hads no clothes" sort of deal where you and others look at a Link Cam and go, "wow, cool, just like a regular cam only better...!" I and others predicted these babies would start popping the minute the first picture was released - why? Because they are clearly 'surfing' out on the leading edge of what today's materials can possibly hope to deliver. That took about a tenth of a second glance at one to figure out.

ISO, CE, UIAA are all about minimums, ideals, quality processes, engineering test beds, and guidance - not the word of God. They also relate more to the manufacture, rather than design application, when it comes to protection. And 'Relying on the expertise of others has been and likely always will be a perilous affair regardless of how it's packaged, sold, and marketed.

Wanderlustmd - in general, my response to this and similar comments relative to the [obvious] limitations to the Link cam design is that it isn't rocket science, but rather just a matter of opening your eyes - one quick glance tells you all there is to know.

I think OP is to be commended for this exploration past the boundaries of convential cam design and the odds are pretty damn good this is a state-of-the-art application of our current commercial materials science. But the odds are equally good that 'state-of-the-art' in materials science currently isn't good enough to produce an indestructible, segmented lobe cam at a weight most folks would be willing to carry. One look at them also tells you OP designers and engineers worked their asses off and agonized back-and-forth over every .001 of an inch on the things.

Personally, I think it's a bold design and business move on OP's part - but it's all of us, and not them, who are solely responsible for our determination of the fitness of these devices for any given application on lead. Funny how this sort of thing really brings out the generational difference in climbers and probably highlights to just what extent 'modern' climbing has become another well-integrated commodity / consumer-oriented activity.

You totally just ended a perfectly reasonable post with, "these damn kids and their new-fangled gear."

How many Links have broken?

Aside from the trigger recall.

And I'm afraid we have to rely on the expertise of others more and more every day in order to adapt to the more sophisticated world around us, or risk becoming dinosaurs.

And relying on the reputation in front of that expertise has been commonplace in climbing for a while, and is probably best highlighted by what CCH is dealing with, and the number of recommendations for a new Metolius cam which hasn't been used by anyone outside testing and development.

jay, all his posts end with some iteration of "these damn kids..."

More like "these gullible damn kids..." after this thread and if they force OP to withdraw Link Cams from the market because they can't figure out when and how to use them appropriately.

I've read the literature that came with both #1 and #2 link cam back to front several times and I don't recall encountering any indication that these things shouldn't be placed in pods or otherwise have placement limitations that differ substantially from those of a regular cam. That being said if it comes out in the wash that there are certain placements that must be avoided with these things, that's cool, all gear has it's limitations, but until such time as OP includes these supposed limitations in the literature how can this credibly be considered pilot error and not blatant gear failure?

Well, hate to sound like a broken record, but how about just looking at them - solid stems, fragile segmented cams? Do you really need to be told or otherwise have it spelled out? Pretty obvious that stout stem can apply significant leverage on those fragile links if allowed to rotate after placing the unit or if it rests on an edge. To be honest, I would think it completely obvious to anyone who considered themselves passed the level of an intermediate trad climber.

The literature is pretty irrelavant in my view as it would be virtually impossible to list or characterize all the potential kinds of placements where you could run into problems with these units.

healyje, do you have a materials science/engineering background? Your claim that this outcome was obvious with a 1/10th second glance sounds disingenuous to me. If the limitation was that obvious, why didn't OP bother to list that in their materials? Such a clear design limitation would have been forced into their materials by their legal department; to do otherwise would seem to invite unnecessary legal problems. Maybe it wasn't so obvious to OP either - they've responded that their testing of link cams for similar rotational forces placed them right in the middle of the pack compared to other cams.

The question is how is the average climber is supposed to know about these inherent design limitations and maybe the difference is generational, and maybe you're asking too much of the average climber.

Your analogy to a biner over an edge is interesting, but unconvincing; this seemingly obvious design limitation is obviously not so apparent to many users. Just because you think it's obvious doesn't make it so, no?

Needs to be returned quickly to the manufacturer. It is difficult to see from the pictures, but looks like brittle fracture initiated by a material defect/inclusion.
Return it for immediate envestigation!