Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
link cam broken when fallen on
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All


olderic


Apr 18, 2012, 11:07 AM
Post #76 of 161 (3344 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1536

Re: [wonderwoman] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 11:10 AM
Post #77 of 161 (3342 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [bearbreeder] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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.

http://www.mountainproject.com/...n-cam-stop/107129489

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 Wink

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 Tongue

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, 11:10 AM
Post #78 of 161 (3340 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [wonderwoman] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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 Tongue

"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! Tongue


bearbreeder


Apr 18, 2012, 11:12 AM
Post #79 of 161 (3338 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [wonderwoman] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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

Wink


wonderwoman


Apr 18, 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #80 of 161 (3334 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4269

Re: [caughtinside] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 11:15 AM
Post #81 of 161 (3328 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2660

Re: [bearbreeder] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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 ...
I have taken two falls on my 0 Master Cam. The first time it ripped from rock failure, the second time it held. But both falls were short, the piece was just below my foot. I have used the 00/0 and 0/1 offset Master Cams a fair amount on aid, although I have never fallen on them on aid. My partner fell on a 0 Master Cam last season and umbrellaed the cam in its placement, shearing off the cam stops.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 18, 2012, 11:16 AM)


wonderwoman


Apr 18, 2012, 11:17 AM
Post #82 of 161 (3325 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4269

Re: [olderic] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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!


Partner rgold


Apr 18, 2012, 11:19 AM
Post #83 of 161 (3314 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [wonderwoman] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 11:23 AM
Post #84 of 161 (3307 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2660

Re: [jt512] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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
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.

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 ...Wink

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?
I have a 0 TCU and Master Cam sitting in front of me right now. Both of them have the springs attached to the cam stops. If you rip the stops off, the cam wont function.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 18, 2012, 11:24 AM)


healyje


Apr 18, 2012, 11:26 AM
Post #85 of 161 (3299 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [USnavy] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 11:31 AM)


USnavy


Apr 18, 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #86 of 161 (3277 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2660

Re: [healyje] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

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. It seems so few people seem to realize the serious expansion range limitations of small cams. As I mentioned before, a 00 Master Cam that is placed with the lobes 50% retracted has as much remaining expansion range as a #4 Camalot that is only 4% retracted! So when you are dealing with a cam that has a full expansion range of around 1/4", it's not hard to run out of expansion range on a fall. Here is how it happens: You load the cam until the expansion range runs out, than the piece gets pulled downwards in the crack (even if only a fraction of an inch), and when the rock constricts, the lobes catch and the cam is loaded in its passive mode which immediately rips the stops off.

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, 11:47 AM)


healyje


Apr 18, 2012, 12:13 PM
Post #87 of 161 (3248 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [USnavy] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 12:22 PM
Post #88 of 161 (3242 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1767

Re: [USnavy] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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.


Partner cracklover


Apr 18, 2012, 12:40 PM
Post #89 of 161 (3228 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [csproul] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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


Partner cracklover


Apr 18, 2012, 12:53 PM
Post #90 of 161 (3215 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [rgold] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 1:00 PM
Post #91 of 161 (3211 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [cracklover] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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 Angelic)


(This post was edited by patto on Apr 18, 2012, 1:05 PM)


healyje


Apr 18, 2012, 1:13 PM
Post #92 of 161 (3197 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [cracklover] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Axle (and stem) failures are another deal and you correctly identify them as the primary failure modes in good placements.


healyje


Apr 18, 2012, 1:22 PM
Post #93 of 161 (3186 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [patto] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.


Partner cracklover


Apr 18, 2012, 1:55 PM
Post #94 of 161 (3168 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [healyje] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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, 2:25 PM
Post #95 of 161 (3148 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30371

Re: [cracklover] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 2:26 PM
Post #96 of 161 (3147 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [cracklover] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 2:42 PM)


Partner cracklover


Apr 18, 2012, 2:36 PM
Post #97 of 161 (3138 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [caughtinside] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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 19, 2012, 11:34 PM
Post #98 of 161 (3033 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 27

Re: [shotwell] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

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, 3:01 AM
Post #99 of 161 (3008 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [VertFlirt] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

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, 6:38 AM
Post #100 of 161 (2985 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 366

Re: [healyje] link cam broken when fallen on [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$40.46 (10% off)
$8.28 (10% off)
$1.35 (10% off)
$3.15 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook