|
olderic
Apr 18, 2012, 6:07 PM
Post #76 of 161
(13479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
wonderwoman wrote: Yeah - I remember you warning me about that before. It was the only thing I could fit into the odd shaped horizontal right before the crux on retribution. I've climbed it twice and fell in the same spot twice. What else do people put in there?
One of the medium tri-cams (blue or brown) or I think it's a green C4 (.75) - none inspired the confidence that the old pin that used to be there did - even though they probably were marginally better. I haven't given any of them the acid test though.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 18, 2012, 6:10 PM
Post #77 of 161
(13477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
bearbreeder wrote: granite_grrl wrote: That about sums it up....though there's always the possibility that you're misrepresenting what they actually said on MP. I rather doubt you could tell MP users that these cam stops randomly broke without having them question this claim too. judge for yourself ... several of the posters indicated explicitely that they did not weigh the cams, others that it likely broke during "cleaning" but hey ... i freely admit to falling on my cam  of course metollius did admit about hacving and issue to at least one poster ... that could be all a lie of course as well ... i sure am glad im on RC ... those darn lying MPers  again ... lets get back to links ... perhaps you can share yr experience owning and fallling on em ...
Typical as threads go. The cam was definitely fallen or hung on and anyone claiming to have broken one cleaning them was doing some extraordinary yarding on them, probably with a sling and leg action involved. Yet again, aluminum - from anyone - doesn't shear unless subjected to fairly strong forces. It ain't magic or alchemy.
Now you can keep whining on and on as you seem want to do in thread after thread, but it's not productive or useful in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Apr 18, 2012, 6:10 PM
Post #78 of 161
(13475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
wonderwoman wrote: bearbreeder wrote: wonderwoman wrote: csproul wrote: Just a thought...people might take you a little more seriously if you stopped writing like a 13 year old girl. But, then again, I'm guessing that you know how much it irritates some people and that you enjoy it. Yeah - stop writing like a girl! bearbreeder probably throws like a girl and climbs like a girl, too. sheesh. im only replying to this post since a mod posted it ... id love to climb gracefully with flawless footwork like some gurls i know ... IMO there is no shame in climbing like a gurl "highly moderated" indeed !!! [image]http://i43.tinypic.com/jl3sib.png [/image] What can I say? I moderate like a girl.
But you are a girl!
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Apr 18, 2012, 6:12 PM
Post #79 of 161
(13473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
welll ill add one more piece of 13 year olds gurls experience ...
ive fallen on my links or had partners fall on em in horizontals a decent number of times ... they work just fine IMO ... so far anyways
providing that
- the flexible part of the stem is what is loaded
- the crack is fairly even
- the extended cams lobes are not loaded over the edge
one thing to watch out for is for the plastic piece rubbing over the edge on a fall ... itll eventually wear out
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Apr 18, 2012, 6:13 PM
Post #80 of 161
(13469 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
caughtinside wrote: wonderwoman wrote: rgold wrote: wonderwoman wrote: caughtinside wrote: THere have been more Link cam failures than alien failures. Geez Louise! Is this true? I picked up 2 link cams last year. I've fallen on one of them twice. So far, so good. But still.... YIKES! Well, I don't know about relative failure rates, but I know that you climb in the Gunks, and link cams are poorly adapted to Gunks placements. In particular, I would consider link cams inappropriate for horizontal cracks. Yeah - I remember you warning me about that before. It was the only thing I could fit into the odd shaped horizontal right before the crux on retribution. I've climbed it twice and fell in the same spot twice. What else do people put in there? Links fit in lots of weird places, and a lot of those weird places I wouldn't trust them. They were initially billed as being awesome in flares, but considering that a cam in a flare reduces your options for aligning the stem with the anticipated load direction, and according to OP you have to line that up perfectly, I'd reckon they are nearly worthless in flares, particularly if it bottoms out (which will likely torque the lobes.) After mine broke, I kept the two bigger ones for a while, thinking they'd at least be good at Indian Creek. Then, at the Creek, I'd find myself at the tops of climbs with nothing left but link cams, and a funky placement (contrary to widely held belief, such placements are in abundance at the creek). I'm only glad donny couldn't see my tears of rage and fear as I stuffed them in and proceeded with zero confidence. I unloaded them after that trip.
I was on a borrowed rack the first time I fell on that climb. All of the gear was completely different than mine and it convinced me to go out and buy some link cams because it fit in so well. Then I got on the climb and fell again. And THEN I heard about the link cam breakage.
I do understand why they aren't ideal in horizontals. I will try to find a better fit if I get on that climb again. And to be honest, my aliens still make me nervous.
Along with my link cams, I bought a bunch of master cams to replace my aliens. Maybe my rack will someday spontaneously combust, like the drummer from spinal tap.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Apr 18, 2012, 6:15 PM
Post #81 of 161
(13463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
bearbreeder wrote: healyje wrote: Cam stops don't break on their own or unweighted. Someone is either mistaken or misrepresenting the facts. As to cam stops failing in a fall - it physically can't happen if pro is properly placed, the cam lobe geometries relative to the axle don't permit it. The only way it can happen is if they are misplaced or walk out to a width of crack relative to the cam lobes where it can - there is no other way. just curious ... how many here have owned and fallen on the 0 and 00 ULTCU/ULPC/Mastercams ...
(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 18, 2012, 6:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Apr 18, 2012, 6:17 PM
Post #82 of 161
(13460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
olderic wrote: wonderwoman wrote: Yeah - I remember you warning me about that before. It was the only thing I could fit into the odd shaped horizontal right before the crux on retribution. I've climbed it twice and fell in the same spot twice. What else do people put in there? One of the medium tri-cams (blue or brown) or I think it's a green C4 (.75) - none inspired the confidence that the old pin that used to be there did - even though they probably were marginally better. I haven't given any of them the acid test though.
I only have the pink tricam. Now I need more gear!
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Apr 18, 2012, 6:19 PM
Post #83 of 161
(13449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
WW, I'm perplexed why a Link Cam could be placed but not some other cam. As far as I know, link cams do not come in sizes any different than other cams and their head width isn't in any way advantageous. The only advantage link cams have is range in a single unit, but that range does not include anything you can't get with a regular cam.
I haven't done Retribution in a few years (having done it first about fifty years ago!), but I never had a problem getting good gear in that horizontal, although part of the problem is leaving room for your fingers...
I don't remember it as a good place for a cam, and indeed most of times I climbed it were before cams were my rack. It may be that I used a small hex there, which of course folks don't carry any more. Small hexes do slot sideways into shallow placements better than stoppers.
Even so, I'd guess you can get a good stopper in there, and almost certainly a good Tricam. I think it is a keyhole-type placement. To get a stopper in, you might have to choose a placement that is the secondary wedging position (wedged against the narrower sides), because that orientation allows you to use a stopper with less height, and the shallowness of the feature requires that.
The hinges on Link Cams have proven vulnerable to loads with any kind of lateral component, so the most dangerous placements are one in which the unit is trapped but the stem is not pointing in the direction of the load. In horizontal cracks, either because of the original placement or cam movement, it is possible that one of the hinges might be loaded over an edge, with results I wouln't want to predict.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Apr 18, 2012, 6:23 PM
Post #84 of 161
(13442 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
jt512 wrote: healyje wrote: bearbreeder wrote: i read all the current documentation and saw nothing to indicate that they were aid only ... nor is it listed as such in metollius page as far as i can see Don't know about what any of the current documentation says, but they used always have a notation to that effect and at 5kn you shouldn't need the documentation to spell it out for you. I don't recall the 0 and 00 TCUs' documentation ever stating that they were aid-only pieces, Jay
granite_grrl wrote: csproul wrote: granite_grrl wrote: bearbreeder wrote: healyje wrote: Cam stops don't break on their own or unweighted. Someone is either mistaken or misrepresenting the facts. As to cam stops failing in a fall - it physically can't happen if pro is properly placed, the cam lobe geometries relative to the axle don't permit it. The only way it can happen is if they are misplaced or walk out to a width of crack relative to the cam lobes where it can - there is no other way. then basically RCers are saying we have several liars at MP ... different people all lying about the same thing at different times, all with the same brand of cam ... as to "aid" most other companies list it items a "aid" only when it is only meant for such ... besides thats fairly irrelevant here since according to RCers, its a placement issue on cams that were "said" to be never weighted or fallen on by several MPers just curious ... how many here have owned and fallen on the 0 and 00 ULTCU/ULPC/Mastercams ... must be a lying binge over at MP ... darn glad im here ... again ... most interesting ... If the people on MP are saying that the cam stops randomly sheared off with no load applied to them then fuck yeah, they're lying....or too stupid to understand that things don't randomly break without applying some sort of force to them. How do you think their cam stops sheared? How do you think you broke the cam stops off your cam? Or are you in the lying/stupid camp too? My husband ripped the cam stops off my purple TCU. He ripped it while aiding and invertied the lobes (bad placement obviously). The cam stops make the cam feel a little nicer when placing it, but you don't need them for an operatonal cam. On these small units the cam stops take very little force before shearing. I think this is not entirely true with the Mastercams. The cam-springs are attached at the cam stops, so if the stops on a Master are broken, you cannot retract the lobes. I don't have them in front of me, but I don't think this is the case with the TCU. I will have to double check with the one I have at home. Oddly I haven't noticed an issue with the spring tension, but I will admit I don't really use this cam anymore either (the hubby ran out and bought me a replacement pretty quick). It was an older cam (from right around when the ultralights were coming out) so maybe it wasn't an issue then?
(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 18, 2012, 6:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 18, 2012, 6:26 PM
Post #85 of 161
(13434 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
USnavy wrote: It's kind of an unofficial official statement. Metolius has openly said in e-mails that the pieces are designed for aid only, however they do not state that on their website. I remember reading a thread awhile back where someone complained that they decked when a 0 or 00 ripped. He contacted Metolius and they told him that the 0 and 00 cams were for aid only.
I just checked with their catalog crew and they did at one time annotate those pieces as aid-only. It was probably not the wisest decision to stop pointing out the obvious in their documentation from my perspective.
USnavy wrote: My partner fell on a 0 Master Cam last season and umbrellaed the cam in its placement, shearing off the cam stops.
As I said, it's physically impossible for a cam - anyone's cam; of any size - to invert and sheer the stops in a good placement - physically impossible.
The only way it can happen is to fall on a piece that isn't placed securely, or is placed securely in less than idea rock, and said cam drags to a wider section of the crack where the cam then inverts. That's why you need to pay exceptional attention to detail when placing all forms of small pro.
(This post was edited by healyje on Apr 18, 2012, 6:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Apr 18, 2012, 6:35 PM
Post #86 of 161
(13412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
healyje wrote: USnavy wrote: It's kind of an unofficial official statement. Metolius has openly said in e-mails that the pieces are designed for aid only, however they do not state that on their website. I remember reading a thread awhile back where someone complained that they decked when a 0 or 00 ripped. He contacted Metolius and they told him that the 0 and 00 cams were for aid only. I just checked with their catalog crew and they did at one time annotate those pieces as aid-only. It was probably not the wisest decision to stop pointing out the obvious in their documentation from my perspective. USnavy wrote: My partner fell on a 0 Master Cam last season and umbrellaed the cam in its placement, shearing off the cam stops. As I said, it's physically impossible for a cam - anyone's cam; of any size - to invert and sheer the stops in a good placement - physically impossible.
So normally when the stops rip off, it is because one or more of the lobes were not expanded enough or the rock was crap. However it is very easy to make that mistake. On cams that small, every lobe really needs to be contracted to 80-95%. The problem is that when you are dealing with a piece that small, the crack is going to be very narrow and it is going to be rather hard to properly inspect the back two lobes. Furthermore, a variation of 1/8" in the width of the crack will not be viable to the naked eye, but it could drop the retraction range of one or more lobes by a good 30-70% depending on the cam size, which can made the difference between the piece pulling and it holding. It is for that exact reason why I have always said that small cams are unreliable and should be replaced with RPs when possible. When I am aid climbing I always try to use RPs in any placement smaller than a green Alien. I do my absolute best to avoid using micro cams. Damn near every fall I have ever taken while aid climbing (although admittedly, I haven't taken that many falls) was the result of a really small cam ripping on me.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 18, 2012, 6:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 18, 2012, 7:13 PM
Post #87 of 161
(13383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
USnavy wrote: No it's not impossible, not even close. The guy that fell on the cam took a factor one fall on it. What likely happened is the cam ran out of range and it umbrellaed. That's is not only very possible, it is very likely.
Hey, did you even bother to read what I wrote?
healyje wrote: The only way it can happen is to fall on a piece that isn't placed securely, or is placed securely in less than idea rock, and said cam drags to a wider section of the crack where the cam then inverts. That's why you need to pay exceptional attention to detail when placing all forms of small pro.
Cams don't "ran out of range", unless they were placed badly, dug out weak rock in a placement, or were drug to a wider spot in the crack.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Apr 18, 2012, 7:22 PM
Post #88 of 161
(13377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
USnavy wrote: healyje wrote: USnavy wrote: It's kind of an unofficial official statement. Metolius has openly said in e-mails that the pieces are designed for aid only, however they do not state that on their website. I remember reading a thread awhile back where someone complained that they decked when a 0 or 00 ripped. He contacted Metolius and they told him that the 0 and 00 cams were for aid only. I just checked with their catalog crew and they did at one time annotate those pieces as aid-only. It was probably not the wisest decision to stop pointing out the obvious in their documentation from my perspective. USnavy wrote: My partner fell on a 0 Master Cam last season and umbrellaed the cam in its placement, shearing off the cam stops. As I said, it's physically impossible for a cam - anyone's cam; of any size - to invert and sheer the stops in a good placement - physically impossible. No it's not impossible, not even close. The guy that fell on the cam took a factor one fall on it. What likely happened is the cam ran out of range and it umbrellaed. That's is not only very possible, it is very likely....
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 18, 2012, 7:40 PM
Post #89 of 161
(13363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
csproul wrote: USnavy wrote: healyje wrote: USnavy wrote: It's kind of an unofficial official statement. Metolius has openly said in e-mails that the pieces are designed for aid only, however they do not state that on their website. I remember reading a thread awhile back where someone complained that they decked when a 0 or 00 ripped. He contacted Metolius and they told him that the 0 and 00 cams were for aid only. I just checked with their catalog crew and they did at one time annotate those pieces as aid-only. It was probably not the wisest decision to stop pointing out the obvious in their documentation from my perspective. USnavy wrote: My partner fell on a 0 Master Cam last season and umbrellaed the cam in its placement, shearing off the cam stops. As I said, it's physically impossible for a cam - anyone's cam; of any size - to invert and sheer the stops in a good placement - physically impossible. No it's not impossible, not even close. The guy that fell on the cam took a factor one fall on it. What likely happened is the cam ran out of range and it umbrellaed. That's is not only very possible, it is very likely.... A good placement doesn't umbrella. If it does, then it was not a good placement.
Actually, you and Healy are technically wrong, although your basic premise is right.
One of the most common failure modes of a cam - particularly small cams, is that the axle bends, allowing the cams to invert. This will happen in a good placement, so long as the force on the cam is high enough.
Taking a fall factor 1 on any little micro cam will likely exceed the capability of the cam. How the cam fails will vary, but if it inverts, that should not surprise you.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 18, 2012, 7:53 PM
Post #90 of 161
(13350 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
WW or rgold - regarding Retribution...
There was a cam fixed at the crux for a while. Am I right that the placement you're referring to is that same one? Because that one was fixed by Alison O when she fell at the roof. Alison O is coming out on Friday, so WW - if you're coming, you can ask her what she placed there.
I've only done the climb once, and I didn't fall, and don't recall that placement. The one thing I remember clearly is that it was my first 5.10 lead in the Gunks, so it holds a special place for me!
As for me - I don't really love Link Cams, but I do use them when my partner brings the rack. For semi-blind placements where the rock is kind of undulating, they're certainly nice.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Apr 18, 2012, 8:00 PM
Post #91 of 161
(13346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Rubbish that micro cams like TCU 0 and 00 are for aid only. Same goes for micro nuts (RPs) which are event lower rated that TCU 00.
RPs were invented for ONE reason and that was to protect climbs. Numerous climbs around here need such gear to be able to be protected. And numerous falls have been arrested by RPs.
Of course you need good quality rock otherwise you'll get rock failure.
(Yes I have placed the RP 0 before  )
(This post was edited by patto on Apr 18, 2012, 8:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 18, 2012, 8:13 PM
Post #92 of 161
(13332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Axle (and stem) failures are another deal and you correctly identify them as the primary failure modes in good placements.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 18, 2012, 8:22 PM
Post #93 of 161
(13321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
patto wrote: Rubbish that micro cams like TCU 0 and 00 are for aid only. Same goes for micro nuts (RPs) which are event lower rated that TCU 00.
They are rated and sold by their manufacturers as aid gear - how we choose to use them is another deal altogether. I probably use aid gear for free climbing protection more than most folks and my standard free climbing rack includes, #2-5 HB Offsets, #1-3 Loweballs, and #2-5 Crack N Ups.
You really have to shrink your perspective way, way down to the millimeter level to successfully use small gear as effective free climbing pro year in year out and even then it's a matter of calculating and accepting the odds.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 18, 2012, 8:55 PM
Post #94 of 161
(13303 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: As I said, it's physically impossible for a cam - anyone's cam; of any size - to invert and sheer the stops in a good placement - physically impossible.
healyje wrote: Axle (and stem) failures are another deal and you correctly identify them as the primary failure modes in good placements.
Since the above is just a bunch of equivocating, I'll say it one more time: For small cams, the most common failure mode is plastic deformation of the axle, along with some flattening of the lobes, allowing the cams to umbrella and eventually invert.
None of this is relevant, though, for the link cam issue. What happens there is that in bottoming placements (like old podded out pin scars) the cam is not free to rotate, and breaks itself.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Apr 18, 2012, 9:25 PM
Post #95 of 161
(13283 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
cracklover wrote: For semi-blind placements where the rock is kind of undulating, they're certainly nice. GO
I used to think that too.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 18, 2012, 9:26 PM
Post #96 of 161
(13282 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
No equivocating about it. Deformation axle failures are still typically a matter of one side of the piece skating and blowing off cam lobe material and usually due to the device rotating to the load. The inward collapse of the axle with both sets of cams are well-placed and in-line with the load in solid rock is rare and I've had more stems and axles simply part company in those instances.
P.S. It's why I tend to use Loweballs in place of small cams or backing them up.
(This post was edited by healyje on Apr 18, 2012, 9:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 18, 2012, 9:36 PM
Post #97 of 161
(13273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
caughtinside wrote: cracklover wrote: For semi-blind placements where the rock is kind of undulating, they're certainly nice. GO I used to think that too.
Yeah, this pretty much says it all: In reply to: You think you always place your cams so they never pivot? Yeah, you're wrong. I broke one when the cam arm hung up on a small crystal.
Especially at the Gunks, where regular cracks with no big divots or crystals are almost unheard of.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
VertFlirt
Apr 20, 2012, 6:34 AM
Post #98 of 161
(13168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2007
Posts: 27
|
it is very possible, if not probable that this is a case of user error. it seems to me that user error resulting in broken cams, is far more common with link cams then any other brand. ive had these cams for a few years, and until now, loved em. my new opinion is that there "limitations" are not acceptable. i think most, if not all cam manufacturers recommend that cams be placed in the direction of a fall.
i found a tread very similar to this one on supertopo.com with pictures of a few broken link cams, check it out.. http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1507599&msg=1511384#msg1511384
i copied and pasted this next paragraph cuz i couldn't a said it better.....
"Anyone who does a lot of traditional climbing places gear in all sorts of inventive and unusual ways. Sometimes I’ll place a cam and look at it and think “that’s bomber but it is going to get really f*cked up and bent out of shape if I fall on it.” And yeah if I do fall on it maybe it does get all torqued out of shape, I have to move it to the aid drawer or the “retired gear that saved my bacon” bin. But it held and did not break.
A piece of gear which must be placed in an exact alignment with the direction of pull or it will likely break is inconcieveable to me. I completely reject the philosophy of this design."
that is the reason for my blanket recommendation, but u dont know me from a hole in the ground,and i know that, therefore i know all you apparent engineers on this site will do your own extensive reserch and make ur own highly educaded decisions and continue writing these essays here.
jt512, i should learn to write like a grown up, but i perfer to be outside rather than at a desk, i hope all ur 25000 posts r this usefull.
climb safe,
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 20, 2012, 10:01 AM
Post #99 of 161
(13143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
VertFlirt wrote: ... is far more common with link cams then any other brand.
Dude, again, could be because THEY AREN'T LIKE ANY OTHER CAM.
Look, if you or anyone else can't tell that after a 1/4 second glance at them then you shouldn't be using them. They are what they are and if the fact they have springs and a trigger somehow fooled you into thinking they're just another cam then it's the same story - you shouldn't be using them.
One of my posts is the one after the Ksolem post you quote. He's another old guy who simply rejects the design tradeoff premise as unacceptable. That's cool and you can bet he either rejected it out of hand or after checking them out, but what he didn't do was leave the ground with any illusion they're just another cam.
The inescapable bottom line remains the same - when you clip a chunk of metal on your rack or harness, you aren't leaving the ground with some idealized or generic device. No, you're leaving the ground with a device with very specific advantages and disadvantages inherent in its design and manufacture. You either recognize and work within those constraints or you are just asking to be hurt or killed.
|
|
|
|
|
shotwell
Apr 20, 2012, 1:38 PM
Post #100 of 161
(13120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2009
Posts: 366
|
healyje wrote: VertFlirt wrote: ... is far more common with link cams then any other brand. Dude, again, could be because THEY AREN'T LIKE ANY OTHER CAM. Look, if you or anyone else can't tell that after a 1/4 second glance at them then you shouldn't be using them. They are what they are and if the fact they have springs and a trigger somehow fooled you into thinking they're just another cam then it's the same story - you shouldn't be using them. One of my posts is the one after the Ksolem post you quote. He's another old guy who simply rejects the design tradeoff premise as unacceptable. That's cool and you can bet he either rejected it out of hand or after checking them out, but what he didn't do was leave the ground with any illusion they're just another cam. The inescapable bottom line remains the same - when you clip a chunk of metal on your rack or harness, you aren't leaving the ground with some idealized or generic device. No, you're leaving the ground with a device with very specific advantages and disadvantages inherent in its design and manufacture. You either recognize and work within those constraints or you are just asking to be hurt or killed.
This is the position I have been less eloquently supporting. Just like any other device you use, it can get you killed. You have to be willing to accept and understand the idiosyncrasies of every piece of equipment you use.
I rejected the Link Cam design in the store, not after breaking one and decking. I knew that I couldn't consistently place that piece in a safe way and never even considered it for my rack.
Based on the design limitations, I only recommend that people that accept and understand those limitations use the device. My point, of course, was that the OP and his buddy had every opportunity to know about this long before anyone hit the ground. Why that position is met with vitriol has a lot to do with the way I said it, but I still think it is both fair and reasonable.
However, the OPs latest post is the most moderate, and I probably never would have replied to the thread if all of that info had been in the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
