I agree with dominic7. While I think the linkcam is a great product (if it doesn't break or pull out), in the real world, we aren't going to use pro perfectly every time. And gear shouldn't break if it isn't used perfectly. I've fell on many different kinds of cams in different types of cracks and while I have had two 0 TCUs pull out, i haven't had any break. I don't think most other brand cams would have broken when placed in the same way in that spot. I don't think most would have pulled out if placed in the lower half of the cam range. But until that theory is tested in that crack with other brand cams (which I won't do) no one knows. I'll hold off on buying a linkcam, but I'd still use them (perfectly placed).

I agree with dominic7. While I think the linkcam is a great product (if it doesn't break or pull out), in the real world, we aren't going to use pro perfectly every time. And gear shouldn't break if it isn't used perfectly. I've fell on many different kinds of cams in different types of cracks and while I have had two 0 TCUs pull out, i haven't had any break. I don't think most other brand cams would have broken when placed in the same way in that spot. I don't think most would have pulled out if placed in the lower half of the cam range. But until that theory is tested in that crack with other brand cams (which I won't do) no one knows. I'll hold off on buying a linkcam, but I'd still use them (perfectly placed).

michaellane, doesn't it make you laugh that people think that we're huge companies with the Marketing Gods ruling down from the top (Penthouse) floors? I should post up some pictures of me cleaning the toilets at Trango.
Climb safe,
Mal

I should post up some pictures of me cleaning the toilets at Trango.

yokese, you want an instructional video on how to clean a toilet?

Dude!

This isn't about placements that fail, this is about gear that fails. Most gear does not break, contrary to Angry's statement. Read the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and implied warranty of merchantability. Of those who apologize for it and rationalize it, what is your agenda/interest?

k.i.k, if your self-representation is accurate, all of us are wishing you'd shut your hole.

This isn't about placements that fail, this is about gear that fails. Most gear does not break, contrary to Angry's statement. Read the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and implied warranty of merchantability. Of those who apologize for it and rationalize it, what is your agenda/interest?

To address dominic7s point, it appears that there was placement failure followed by material failure rather than the other way around. This is not uncommon at all when we field test cams intentionally placed in bad placements. It happen more often with tiny cams but it does happen with all sizes. If a placement partially fails then the cam is loaded on two cams only and then all test results, bets and performance estimations are off. In this case, the force was applied at an angle other than what was intended and the cam is forced to try to align with the load. When it can't, (As in this case) , the upper cams pulled out of the flare and loaded the remaining 2 lobes in a manner that possibly no cam could sustain.

michaellane, doesn't it make you laugh that people think that we're huge companies with the Marketing Gods ruling down from the top (Penthouse) floors? I should post up some pictures of me cleaning the toilets at Trango.
Climb safe,
Mal

In the end, I think the problem isn't one thing, but a combination of the basic design not being a very sound idea in the first place, no statement of operating limitations by the manufacturer, and problems with the manufacturing processes.

Who places cams poorly and hopes they align with the fall? No one. We place cams as best we can and expect them to withstand normal fall forces.

Good doublespeak though......

I would not trust pro of any sort (aside from an angle) in those opening flares. The presumption is that if you are good enough to lead a 5.11 crack, you are solid enough to solo the first 20 feet of 5.9 or maybe 5.10a. But that start is technical and insecure, and the last time I did it (2000?), it seemed to me that the footholds had begun to polish. But like many if not most JTree routes, the first section of the climb is essentially a no-fall zone. I personally have never seen anyone take a real fall on pro in that section. Now we know how at least one such scenario turned out.

Quite a silly thing to say don't you think?

As stated in Michael’s summary of the report; The nature of the placement and the mode of failure are completely intertwined.

As placement adjustment/failure was occurring the orientation changed, this is what lead to the failure.

HOW MUCH FORCE, in this 30 degree out of plumb line pod.... to break this cam, exactly?????

How much force did the cam incur before it exploded. THAT is the pertinent question, isn't it?????

Scatch marks? Sorry, that just doesn't do it for this country boy.

Cheers
DMT

Assuming a 150lb climber, this fall (8 feet of rope and 2 feet above the piece) put 4.8 kn on the piece. According to a fall calculator I found through the site.

Like Michael said in the report, if the lack of possible rotation caused the cam to be effectively X-loaded, you can see how it might happen. Not that it gives one a warm fuzzy feeling.

On the plus side, at least we have a real life example of how these cams carry the potential to be much more sensitive to placement.

I have been climbing on Omega for the last 12 years and have seen exceptional products come out of there shop. Micheal and Omega are pushing the standards in Product Development. Can't wait to see whats next. (Maybe a smaller version of the Link). If you spent more time climbing and less time blogging you might climb harder than 5.9.

Jessen