|
cush
Sep 12, 2009, 2:57 AM
Post #1 of 13
(2390 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2008
Posts: 320
|
i was looking into getting some link cams and i was wondering about how cam'd they need to be to hold properly. i know there has been a lot of chatter about some of them failing but i'm only looking to get them to suppliment my current rack. i was worried about them under camming and not holding into the rock. i know that even the larger sizes can compress down to fit into very thin cracks. can they only be used in cracks this thin or can they be closed to a level comparable with a normal cam of the same size and still hold? i'm not talking about having the lobes barely closed but having them closed to the point of it being just as wide as a normal cam such as a C4. sorry if this is confusing and convoluted.
thanks in advance for the help
-TL
|
|
|
|
|
bennydh
Sep 12, 2009, 3:12 AM
Post #2 of 13
(2383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2005
Posts: 368
|
Lobes ripping off aside..
I think another issue you might be concerned with is the depth of the placement. I would be if owned or used any after having had a few opportunities to see the way they cam in shallow placements.
Maybe it is my paranoia, but I wouldn't want any part of a two part cam lobe sticking out of a crack, especially if it were under cammed.
|
|
|
|
|
cush
Sep 12, 2009, 3:18 AM
Post #3 of 13
(2379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2008
Posts: 320
|
the thing is if it were only cammed halfway (would be about the same as fully cammed for any otehr device) it would work better for shallow placements because the lobes wouldn't fold over a second time and push themselves farther back on the stem.
|
|
|
|
|
BirminghamBen
Sep 12, 2009, 3:38 AM
Post #4 of 13
(2364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2009
Posts: 65
|
They've worked well for me and caught falls in cammed situations where they'd be in similar ranes to comparable C4s, for instance. They also worked well cammed severely where the second set of lobes is engaged. I love mine.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Sep 12, 2009, 3:39 AM
Post #5 of 13
(2362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
cush wrote: i was looking into getting some link cams and i was wondering about how cam'd they need to be to hold properly. i know there has been a lot of chatter about some of them failing but i'm only looking to get them to suppliment my current rack. i was worried about them under camming and not holding into the rock. i know that even the larger sizes can compress down to fit into very thin cracks. can they only be used in cracks this thin or can they be closed to a level comparable with a normal cam of the same size and still hold? i'm not talking about having the lobes barely closed but having them closed to the point of it being just as wide as a normal cam such as a C4. sorry if this is confusing and convoluted. thanks in advance for the help -TL
Yes your post is very confusing and convoluted.
Like any cam you do not want to undercam the cam. However Link cams have a MUCH larger range, twice as much as regular cams. Thus Link cams have more than twice as much usable range.
I don't know why you'd be concerned about undercamming link cams when they have such a huge range.
|
|
|
|
|
rockgoat
Sep 12, 2009, 1:22 PM
Post #6 of 13
(2263 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2003
Posts: 122
|
Last weekend at the New on Triple Treat I watched my friend rip a Link Cam after falling about 6ft. He placed it deep in the crack and couldn't see the lobes but it was in its range. After looking at the cam it looked like the one side was on the small lobes and the other side was on the middle lobes. I wouldn't just throw these cams in and go.
I'm not a big fan of these cams. To many moving parts.
|
|
|
|
|
Lazlo
Sep 12, 2009, 3:37 PM
Post #7 of 13
(2222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5079
|
rockgoat wrote: Last weekend at the New on Triple Treat I watched my friend rip a Link Cam after falling about 6ft. He placed it deep in the crack and couldn't see the lobes but it was in its range. After looking at the cam it looked like the one side was on the small lobes and the other side was on the middle lobes. I wouldn't just throw these cams in and go. I'm not a big fan of these cams. To many moving parts.
You can't "shove and go" any cam.
I would suspect failure from any cam in that condition.
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Sep 12, 2009, 5:15 PM
Post #8 of 13
(2192 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
cush wrote: i was looking into getting some link cams and i was wondering about how cam'd they need to be to hold properly. i know there has been a lot of chatter about some of them failing but i'm only looking to get them to supplement my current rack. i was worried about them under camming and not holding into the rock. i know that even the larger sizes can compress down to fit into very thin cracks. can they only be used in cracks this thin or can they be closed to a level comparable with a normal cam of the same size and still hold? i'm not talking about having the lobes barely closed but having them closed to the point of it being just as wide as a normal cam such as a C4. sorry if this is confusing and convoluted. thanks in advance for the help -TL
Each link cam covers the same range as their BD counterpart and the size below it (actually more than that in all cases but for illustration purposes.). So basically what it means is that if you had a Gold Link it would cover the same range as a Gold C4 and a Red C4. Red Link covers Red C4 and Green C4 etc. So if you're undercamming a Gold C4 then you'd be undercamming the Gold Link as well. An overcammed C4 would, of course, not be a problem for the link of the same color/size.
|
|
|
|
|
davidbr
Sep 19, 2009, 11:05 AM
Post #9 of 13
(2016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2004
Posts: 191
|
Having been using both for a few years, if the placement is close to the large end of the cam's range, I'd be much happier with a BD than a Link, esppecially on slick rock like limestone. They seem to hold better at that end of their range. I have no scientific/mathematical data to justify this, only my own experience.
|
|
|
|
|
umeroz7
Sep 19, 2009, 2:10 PM
Post #10 of 13
(1993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2008
Posts: 24
|
your trying to get gear that covers more range and wondering about under camming it. How far off are you on seeing a crack and choosing the right size cam?
How about you just take some time to learn your cam sizes better and leave the link cams alone. Perhaps your money would be better spent on a pair of glasses
|
|
|
|
|
tomtom
Sep 19, 2009, 6:10 PM
Post #11 of 13
(1932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2004
Posts: 366
|
umeroz7 wrote: your trying to get gear that covers more range and wondering about under camming it. How far off are you on seeing a crack and choosing the right size cam? How about you just take some time to learn your cam sizes better and leave the link cams alone. Perhaps your money would be better spent on a pair of glasses
Not everyone carries an infinite number of every size cams on a pitch. Sometimes, when you get toward the top of a pitch and both of your #2s are well below your feet, you have to decide whether the #1 left on your rack is good enough for the placement available.
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Sep 19, 2009, 9:01 PM
Post #12 of 13
(1904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
davidbr wrote: Having been using both for a few years, if the placement is close to the large end of the cam's range, I'd be much happier with a BD than a Link, esppecially on slick rock like limestone. They seem to hold better at that end of their range. I have no scientific/mathematical data to justify this, only my own experience.
I'm of the same opinion. Especially on the Gold and Red. Purple and Green I don't have that reservation, I suppose. I've used both my set of C4's and Links on my single rack and carry both on my doubles rack. For the OP, they're a fantastic supplement to any rack if you're wanting doubles of anything.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj7051
Sep 19, 2009, 11:06 PM
Post #13 of 13
(1876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2007
Posts: 114
|
My 2 cents : I've had the 1 and 2 sence they came out, I've learned the most important thing to keep in mind is you don't want these to rotate in a fall . I don't use them at all in vertical cracks , but have found they do very well in horizontals and undercling/roof areas and are great for setting up gear anchors at the end of a long trad route. I always sling them long. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
