|
wcm
Jul 7, 2009, 4:49 AM
Post #1 of 21
(1627 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2008
Posts: 8
|
TCUs placed one above the other in a left facing dish/flake. Whipped out over runout & roof, right foot landing on roof section projecting fall farther left; direction of fall would have been down/left w/ force of pull falling roughly 8-10ft to the left of placement.
|
|
|
|
|
a-e-jones
Jul 7, 2009, 4:54 AM
Post #2 of 21
(1609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2008
Posts: 295
|
so you took a whipper and ripped two cams....is that what your trying to say?
its either far to late for me, or this post is as cryptic as anything from majidiot
|
|
|
|
|
wcm
Jul 7, 2009, 5:03 AM
Post #3 of 21
(1600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2008
Posts: 8
|
Just looking for beta on small tcu placements where you cannot fit cams/stoppers on runout...
|
|
|
|
|
bradley3297
Jul 7, 2009, 5:44 AM
Post #4 of 21
(1564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2008
Posts: 83
|
omg there not aliens. better test them....
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jul 7, 2009, 6:01 AM
Post #5 of 21
(1550 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
The out of focus shots made my evening.
|
|
|
|
|
sgreer
Jul 7, 2009, 6:25 AM
Post #6 of 21
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2008
Posts: 112
|
In reply to: Just looking for beta
Try using the macro mode for the close ups next time...it's the little flower icon.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Jul 7, 2009, 6:41 AM
Post #7 of 21
(1526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
sgreer wrote: In reply to: Just looking for beta Try using the macro mode for the close ups next time...it's the little flower icon.
 Nice.
|
|
|
|
|
seatbeltpants
Jul 7, 2009, 8:52 AM
Post #8 of 21
(1494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Posts: 581
|
wcm wrote: TCUs placed one above the other in a left facing dish/flake. Whipped out over runout & roof, right foot landing on roof section projecting fall farther left; direction of fall would have been down/left w/ force of pull falling roughly 8-10ft to the left of placement. [image]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2c9iWtHrc2Q/SlLQ_D4_e9I/AAAAAAAABXQ/rNHwj7jPCug/s720/TCU%20001.jpg[/image] [image]http://lh4.ggpht.com/_2c9iWtHrc2Q/SlLQ_WiMIUI/AAAAAAAABXU/QL4mQ5SePeo/s720/TCU%20002.jpg[/image] [image]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2c9iWtHrc2Q/SlLRADj_YZI/AAAAAAAABXY/DWR5ulugiS0/s720/TCU%20003.jpg[/image] [image]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2c9iWtHrc2Q/SlLRAS5-zwI/AAAAAAAABXc/EmzRF2ReTgo/s720/TCU%20004.jpg[/image] [image]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2c9iWtHrc2Q/SlLRAqNVE7I/AAAAAAAABXg/6DQM-AZPJtU/s720/TCU%20005.jpg[/image] [image]http://lh4.ggpht.com/_2c9iWtHrc2Q/SlLRAz1SEwI/AAAAAAAABXk/Ah69qm4GEms/s720/TCU%20006.jpg[/image]
can you make this a poll?
steve
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Jul 7, 2009, 11:16 AM
Post #9 of 21
(1459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
Dude, you placed the smallest two TCUs. They are difficult to place, have little margin for error, and you're surprised they ripped? Did you rip the cam stops off them too? My husband ripped them off my old purple TCU when aiding one time, don't expect the cam stops to do squat on those two smallest sizes.
Take some photos of the actual cam placements next time if you want someone to analyze them for you.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Jul 7, 2009, 12:08 PM
Post #10 of 21
(1419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Those still look fine to me.
|
|
|
|
|
apeman_e
Jul 7, 2009, 12:16 PM
Post #11 of 21
(1414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Posts: 212
|
cams that small scare me. So little margin for error.
The smallest I have is the blue TCU, and even that size does not inspire confidence.
What kind of beta could you possibly be looking for? Be careful with microcams?
Do you think it was the cams that failed or a less-than-ideal placement that failed?
Hopefully, you weren't hurt. Must have been quite the rush when you bounced off the roof.
|
|
|
|
|
crankingclimber
Jul 7, 2009, 12:21 PM
Post #12 of 21
(1406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 237
|
Ditto to everything everybody else said, AND
"... TCUs placed one above the other in a left facing dish/flake..."
Not being able to see the placement, and know how sound the rock is, I can't say for sure, but I'd bet that flake flexed a teeny bit, and that's all it took for the TCUs to max out, and hence umbrella and pull. Those little guys have to be completely max cammed, and the rock cannot flex one bit - the grey is something like 1/4" to 1/4" expansion range - that's absolutely miniscule, and if the rock flexes a tiny bit, or crumbles a tiny bit etc. then it is out of it's expansion range. Also, whichever came was on top probably forced the flake away enough that the bottom one was useless.
Try camming all the way, and burying them in a crack which won't flex, and won't crumble, and they'll hold a helluva lot - my grey has seen multiple 40 footers, and has strands of the main cable broken, and significant scarring on the lobes, but still holds - and I'm over 200 pounds.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
chilli
Jul 7, 2009, 12:52 PM
Post #13 of 21
(1378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 401
|
i'm with crankingclimber on this one. granted i'm no expert, but i've had the purple tcu catch me more than once or twice and still be running. i even had it behind a flake in a situation very similar to what your describing and it held when i dropped on it. given your description i can only assume that mine held and yours didn't because mine was in nice granite with a pretty slot for the microcam (and i didn't whip on it hard). i suspect that, given the range of your fall, there was either a little chip that popped in the rock or maybe even flake flexing a tiny bit, but i dunno.
edit to add: or just send 'em to aric ;)
(This post was edited by chilli on Jul 7, 2009, 12:53 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
brownie710
Jul 7, 2009, 12:56 PM
Post #14 of 21
(1369 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2007
Posts: 531
|
i've always placed, and was taught, to look at microcams like the gray and purple as nuts, cam them nearly closed and work them into a constriction, there is just not enough there to use like you would a .75 camalot.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jul 7, 2009, 1:26 PM
Post #15 of 21
(1341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
wcm wrote: TCUs placed one above the other in a left facing dish/flake. Whipped out over runout & roof, right foot landing on roof section projecting fall farther left; direction of fall would have been down/left w/ force of pull falling roughly 8-10ft to the left of placement. I think he was just sharing the moment...he's not saying anything else, you folks are reading into it. Thanks WCM Edited to remove duplicate picture links.....
(This post was edited by billcoe_ on Jul 7, 2009, 7:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Jul 7, 2009, 2:26 PM
Post #16 of 21
(1296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
granite_grrl wrote: ...Take some photos of the actual cam placements next time if you want someone to analyze them for you.
He'd have to get back up there to take the shot.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jul 7, 2009, 2:33 PM
Post #17 of 21
(1276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
He never said they pulled.
|
|
|
|
|
wcm
Jul 7, 2009, 6:20 PM
Post #19 of 21
(1155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2008
Posts: 8
|
Yep the blew and no i'm not surprised they did, it was super shallow. Thanks Billcoe, just sharing a moment yes, and thanks to all of those who provided beta.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jul 7, 2009, 6:48 PM
Post #20 of 21
(1117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Shallow TCU placements (when you have no other option) often end up with the cam stem pointing out at least somewhat horizontally. If I remember right, WCM, last weekend that's how you said these were placed. I still think that the rotation of the head as you came down caused the lobes to invert and the axle to bend due to strange torques and forces on the cam head. If you can (and sometimes you can't) point those stems down and clip em long! WCM, was the flake small enough to have flexed? Or was it thick and there was no way it was going anywhere?
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
wcm
Jul 7, 2009, 6:52 PM
Post #21 of 21
(1107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2008
Posts: 8
|
The flake could not have flexed, it was solid, just odd shape w/ very little room for the placement. These were horizontal placements yes. There was an extended draw on both of these, which while decreasing rope drag increased the whipperness lol...
|
|
|
|
|
|
