|
dingus
Nov 17, 2008, 7:18 PM
Post #1 of 24
(11693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
thanks for the work and the posting
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Nov 17, 2008, 7:18 PM
Post #2 of 24
(11693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Thank you for unlocking the power of the golden spiral
|
|
|
|
|
xtremst80
Nov 17, 2008, 7:22 PM
Post #3 of 24
(11681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 306
|
Nice work! Good read
|
|
|
|
|
jeepnphreak
Nov 17, 2008, 7:39 PM
Post #4 of 24
(11634 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2008
Posts: 1259
|
Nice, glade to see that the cam held up to what its susposed to.
whatcha do to you thumb nail, looks like that hurt
|
|
|
|
|
zonie
Nov 17, 2008, 7:41 PM
Post #5 of 24
(11626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2004
Posts: 14
|
Outstanding report.
One question: what did you do to your thumb?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 17, 2008, 8:36 PM
Post #6 of 24
(11536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
BTW, this thread dispelled even a wisp of an urge to maybe try one of these cams out.
They are so 'garage-80s!'
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 17, 2008, 8:58 PM
Post #7 of 24
(11508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
tigerlilly
Nov 17, 2008, 9:16 PM
Post #8 of 24
(11475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 564
|
adatesman wrote: But to put things in perspective, prices on the GS website run from $52-$54 and you can get Aliens from EMS for $60 or Zeros from MGear for $64. Maybe if they lowered their prices some and/or finished them a bit better, but given that small of a difference I don't see it happening.
I paid less than sticker price on Ebay for the sacrificial lamb. I forget exactly what, but it was in the vicinity of $40. Seems some joker nudged the price up a bit - that one was the only GS cam I saw anyone bid on at the time, and the opening price was 30-something. At that price, they might be interesting to the budget-conscious, if the mfr. can get a CE certification (and get rid of that silly white sleeve).
Kathy
|
|
|
|
|
Carnage
Nov 17, 2008, 9:48 PM
Post #9 of 24
(11449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2007
Posts: 923
|
im not too up on the science of stuff here(being a computer engineer) but i did notice something when watching the video.
it seems the cam's head starts to move down very early( when the display's readout is at 768(lbs?) at about 0:27 in the video)
i think this is because of either the axle bending or the lobes being compressed. assumption of units is correct, thats the equivalent of taking a fall factor .05 (using a 80kg climber and some messing around on the petzl fall simulator). this is pretty easily achievable, so although the cam will hold, it almost seems like it is disposable.
after you fall on it once, you gotta buy a new one 
forgive me if i've missed something, im a newish trad leader still figuring things out.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Nov 17, 2008, 10:19 PM
Post #10 of 24
(11418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
I watched the video to see what you mean as I also started to see movement around the same value that you stated. The thing that I noticed though is that the cam started to move at that point, and continued to move until it broke, this suggests to me that it was still within the elastic area, and had not yet yielded meaning that as soon as it was unloaded it would just spring back to its original shape. I really can't know the point of yielding based on the video, but I would be willing to bet that it would be fine for at least another 500 lbs or so with no noticeable deformation upon removal of the load.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 17, 2008, 10:32 PM
Post #11 of 24
(11408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Cool, thanks for sharing. An interesting issue:
adatesman wrote: When you watch the video you can clearly hear the point where the strands start to break, which corresponds to the big dip in the force chart.
This shows that the cam actually started to fail by way of wires pulling out of the swage slightly below the rated breaking strength of the piece.
This shows that, at least in this case, testing something to below, but close to its rated holding ability may compromise the physical integrity of the piece.
Not surprising, of course, but interesting to see proven.
Cheers!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 17, 2008, 11:19 PM
Post #12 of 24
(11374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 18, 2008, 3:43 PM
Post #13 of 24
(11277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 18, 2008, 4:04 PM
Post #14 of 24
(11255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
adatesman, interesting!
The thing is, even though, in this case, it did wind up exceeding the rated strength before breaking, I'm far from convinced that a piece that has had its physical integrity compromised to the degree that this cam did while still below the rated strength, would continue to function properly in the field.
It seems very likely to me that after the strands start to pull through the swage, if the cam is just carried around on a rack, placed, lightly loaded with body weight, etc, that the strands of the cable would continue to move around, separating more from each other and from the sleeve. Much like a cable with a crimped end sleeve will stay fine forever, but once that end sleeve comes off a little, the cable will fray more and more from normal use.
And if the movement folks were seeing starting at low loads was due to the cable beginning to slip in the swage, then I'd consider these cams to be total garbage.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 18, 2008, 4:14 PM
Post #15 of 24
(11245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I have a question about your pull testing machine. How evenly does the force increase?
Because when I look at this graph:
I see a very uneven increase in loading. If that's not due to the machine itself, then something else must be slipping to drop the load. The only possible causes I can think of are: the head of the cam slipping down in your vice; the cable itself stretching; or the cable pulling/shearing from the swage.
If it's the last of the three, and it's starting at 500 lbs of force... Well that's terrible, don't you think?
A good way to test this would be to get another one of these, mark the cable precisely where it enters, load it several times in increasing amounts (but under the breaking strength), and then check your mark after each test to measure the cable slippage.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 18, 2008, 5:28 PM
Post #16 of 24
(11213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
curtis_g
Nov 18, 2008, 5:58 PM
Post #17 of 24
(11176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 594
|
If only I had unmonitored access to the $20k test rigs in my materials lab here at the U of I.
Is there any dependence of modulus or UTS on the loading rate?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Nov 18, 2008, 6:20 PM
Post #19 of 24
(11148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
curtis_g
Nov 19, 2008, 6:21 AM
Post #20 of 24
(11082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 594
|
adatesman wrote: curtis_g wrote: If only I had unmonitored access to the $20k test rigs in my materials lab here at the U of I. Is there any dependence of modulus or UTS on the loading rate? Heh.... For a paltry $18k you could have one of your very own on Ebay: 20,000 lb capacity Instron 1125 Pull Tester If only I had that kind of budget....  
Quality set of various grips not included.
Our favorite question for the lab manager is how much all the stuff we're playing with costs. And that's only the instructional lab...
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
Nov 19, 2008, 3:36 PM
Post #21 of 24
(11005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
tigerlilly wrote: adatesman wrote: But to put things in perspective, prices on the GS website run from $52-$54 and you can get Aliens from EMS for $60 or Zeros from MGear for $64. Maybe if they lowered their prices some and/or finished them a bit better, but given that small of a difference I don't see it happening. I paid less than sticker price on Ebay for the sacrificial lamb. I forget exactly what, but it was in the vicinity of $40. Seems some joker nudged the price up a bit - that one was the only GS cam I saw anyone bid on at the time, and the opening price was 30-something. At that price, they might be interesting to the budget-conscious, if the mfr. can get a CE certification (and get rid of that silly white sleeve). Kathy
Did you report that shill bidding? If that's the company pulling that BS, there's one more reason not to buy their product! Look up shill bidding on eBay's help pages, they give perps the boot and press charges without hesitation.
You are saying that there were multiple cam units at their starting $30, yet the only cam the 3rd party bid on was the cam you had already placed a bid on? Super suspicious.
|
|
|
|
|
tigerlilly
Nov 21, 2008, 1:40 AM
Post #22 of 24
(8832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 564
|
jrathfon wrote: tigerlilly wrote: adatesman wrote: But to put things in perspective, prices on the GS website run from $52-$54 and you can get Aliens from EMS for $60 or Zeros from MGear for $64. Maybe if they lowered their prices some and/or finished them a bit better, but given that small of a difference I don't see it happening. I paid less than sticker price on Ebay for the sacrificial lamb. I forget exactly what, but it was in the vicinity of $40. Seems some joker nudged the price up a bit - that one was the only GS cam I saw anyone bid on at the time, and the opening price was 30-something. At that price, they might be interesting to the budget-conscious, if the mfr. can get a CE certification (and get rid of that silly white sleeve). Kathy Did you report that shill bidding? If that's the company pulling that BS, there's one more reason not to buy their product! Look up shill bidding on eBay's help pages, they give perps the boot and press charges without hesitation. You are saying that there were multiple cam units at their starting $30, yet the only cam the 3rd party bid on was the cam you had already placed a bid on? Super suspicious.
I wish I had known that at the time, as I could have documented what was happening. I don't have any evidence now. Thanks for the education. I had written it off as the wild, wild web in action.
Kathy
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Nov 23, 2008, 12:59 AM
Post #23 of 24
(8791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
adatesman wrote: On a somewhat unrelated note, I'm a bit perplexed by the force the cable broke at.... Their website clearly states that its stainless 5/32" 7x19 cable, but every supplier I look at only has that size/construction in a 2400 pound breaking strength rating. So even assuming the swage gave 100% strength (which appears to be the case since the cable broke) that still puts the cable breaking 9.4% above its rating. I was under the impression that cable strength ratings had no built-in safety factor, but maybe they still fudge things a bit to make sure they exceed the spec? Hmmm.....
Even if they don't have a "safety margin" per se (3:1, 5:1 etc) like a lot of things, that rated strength is still subject to variation. Maybe 2400 lb is the AVERAGE of all tests. In that case some will withstand a bit more (and some a bit less, duh). Or maybe they use a 6 sigma metric. In which case it had damn well better break above that value. Or maybe it's just their MBS - minimum breaking strength.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
