|
majid_sabet
Jul 13, 2010, 3:00 AM
Post #2 of 140
(20850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
There is something wrong with this design. the trigger wires on the cam lobes are too close to the outside surface and over time, they will break apart.
or may be I am just blind and a dumb engineer
http://totemcams.com/...75&ap=1242136439
|
|
|
|
|
charlie.elverson
Jul 13, 2010, 3:43 AM
Post #3 of 140
(20806 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2009
Posts: 131
|
those are pretty interesting looking. Anyone out there have any experience with these?
|
|
|
|
|
cornstateclimber
Jul 13, 2010, 4:36 AM
Post #4 of 140
(20763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 324
|
different design, id like to give em a try! where are they from? not much info on totem
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 13, 2010, 4:59 AM
Post #5 of 140
(20749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
The are possibly the biggest advancement in camming technology since the flexible stem.
They have a range and weight and strength comparable to C4s. Yet that have more holding power and unique capabilities.
Time will tell how these perform. Personally I would like to see a graph of their effective camming angle throughout there range. As this is the important variable that is unknown.
They also claim to have the narrowest head width which could be great news for those who love narrow heads widths. There doesn't seem much not to like about them but until they have proven themselves on rock we can only speculate.
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 13, 2010, 5:09 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Bolter
Jul 13, 2010, 8:22 AM
Post #6 of 140
(20700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2009
Posts: 50
|
I dont like them.
The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed.
Looks like the are bulky and heavy.
Pretty funky.
Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed.
Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC.
There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam??
80 bucks too.
Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Carnage
Jul 13, 2010, 1:50 PM
Post #7 of 140
(20603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2007
Posts: 923
|
majid_sabet wrote: There is something wrong with this design. the trigger wires on the cam lobes are too close to the outside surface and over time, they will break apart. or may be I am just blind and a dumb engineer http://totemcams.com/...75&ap=1242136439
a valid concern. If this was BD putting these things out, i'd say something like "BD knows how to and is smart enough to test this kind of thing, i'm sure it's fine"
since these are being put out by a startup, i'll say "I like the idea, I want them to work, but i'll wait till 2nd gen so they can workout things like this."
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Jul 13, 2010, 2:19 PM
Post #8 of 140
(20582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
I'm sorry I must have missed the part where you said that you've used them, before you stated you didn't like them.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Jul 13, 2010, 2:24 PM
Post #9 of 140
(20571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed.
I am pretty sure all cams get stuck when over cammed.
In reply to: Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed.
In reply to: Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
Name the cam that holds in an extreme downward flare. If it is already out, I want to know about it.
|
|
|
|
|
patmay81
Jul 13, 2010, 3:29 PM
Post #10 of 140
(20514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 1081
|
Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
improved holding power would be awesome for situations where ordinary cams may walk, where you are dealing with flares, unwanted cam rotation, etc.
You can't claim the "cam shape is going to get stuck easy" if you have never placed the cam. I know what you are talking about, the flat appearance of the cam lobe. but this could be a saving feature if it is placed in an over cammed situation. play around with one and then complain about how easily it gets stuck.
80 bucks is not that much to ask for a cam that does all this cam claims. I would actually buy the whole set at that price. Other specialty cams run up to $100+ (link cams specifically) and in my opinion are worth every dollar of it.
These are obviously not a "first set" of cams. And I would even say they are not a set of cams that 90% of the trad climbers out there should be looking into. But for those who like shallow flared cracks, or clean aid, these might be a perfect piece.
I'm not saying they ARE going to be prefect, but they could be. please don't rag on a product before its even been used. lets try and be optimistic!
The one thing I noticed that could be validly criticized was the range; it may be a little small. but as a supplemental cam, that doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 13, 2010, 3:49 PM
Post #11 of 140
(20492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
majid_sabet wrote: There is something wrong with this design. the trigger wires on the cam lobes are too close to the outside surface and over time, they will break apart. or may be I am just blind and a dumb engineer
Um. They are the LOAD BEARING wires on the cam lobes!!
patmay81 wrote: The one thing I noticed that could be validly criticized was the range; it may be a little small. but as a supplemental cam, that doesn't really matter.
It seems that it has one on the better ranges out there of the non special range cams. These sit just below BD C4s which are on the low end of the holding power scale.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jul 13, 2010, 4:03 PM
Post #12 of 140
(20466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
These things are pretty radically different than your typical cam in a lot of ways. I'm in the "wait for other people to put a lot of field testing time" category.
Field durability and repair is a huge concern, given that the exposed wires are the load bearing components. Then there are all the usual concerns: lobe durability, things gunking up quickly, etc.
There is also the issue of the (edit: constant? not?) cam angle, and how that will be different than the way we typically consider effective placements along its expansion range in different kinds of flares.
VERY cool ideas here, but I'll sit around for a bit and let others check them out for me.
On the other hand, I'd gladly do an early review of them if someone sent me a couple. . .
(This post was edited by shoo on Jul 13, 2010, 4:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 13, 2010, 4:05 PM
Post #13 of 140
(20461 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
wow, interesting lobe shape. I'm curious to know what people will think of these.
As for the trigger being close to the cams, while I have no reason to think that is an engineering problem per se, I can say that I really don't like it when the triggers make it into the crack. But, without having seen one of these, I can't say if this is simply a deceptive photo.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jul 13, 2010, 4:08 PM
Post #14 of 140
(20454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jul 13, 2010, 4:11 PM
Post #15 of 140
(20449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
The diagonal pattern on the lobes is an interesting trick (theoretically increases friction by "catching" features while maintaining camming angle).
A course cross-hatch might be even better, since it could catch on tiny horizontal features as well.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 13, 2010, 4:13 PM
Post #16 of 140
(20441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
patmay81 wrote: Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago. have you ever even placed a cam... any cam... ever?
His name is Bolter.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 13, 2010, 4:13 PM
Post #17 of 140
(20440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
(apparently it doesn't need to be resaid)
Those aren't the triggers going into the crack they are the LOAD BEARING CABLES. (analogous to the stem)
The lobes are shaped like that because they have a larger nominal camming angle!! (20 degrees apparently). But because of the direct cam loading they have an effective camming angle much lower. (13degrees)
Patent design info can be found here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7014156.html
(the patent number listed on website is incorrect)
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 13, 2010, 4:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Jul 13, 2010, 4:36 PM
Post #18 of 140
(20411 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
I'm intrigued by the smallest two sizes.
I'm not in the habit of expecting radically flared placements to hold falls and doubt I ever will be but the range in the blue size is the same as a .3 c4 (ie more then a blue master cam) which could be really nice if the head width is as narrow as claimed and if the mechanism doesn't break in normal uses like link cams.
It is slightly annoying that the range on the yellow starts a couple of mm higher then a yellow metolius (and probably a c3 or alien)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 13, 2010, 4:59 PM
Post #19 of 140
(20381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
patto wrote: (apparently it doesn't need to be resaid) Those aren't the triggers going into the crack they are the LOAD BEARING CABLES. (analogous to the stem) The lobes are shaped like that because they have a larger nominal camming angle!! (20 degrees apparently). But because of the direct cam loading they have an effective camming angle much lower. (13degrees) Patent design info can be found here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7014156.html (the patent number listed on website is incorrect)
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the triggers. While they appear to be in the middle, they also appear to be closer to the lobes than on C4s.
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Jul 13, 2010, 11:19 PM
Post #20 of 140
(20252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
I've been following Totem cams since they were still prototyping.
1) They look damn sexy
2) The videos show some spectacular holding in less than ideal placements
3) They look damn sexy?
I hope this is the alien replacement we've all been waiting for
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 14, 2010, 4:16 AM
Post #21 of 140
(20159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
They have their ordering page up but its sort of hidden. Better pictures on the units here.
http://www.totemcams.com/...logue/index.php?id=1
There are two weight bearing cables going to each lobe. Making twelve cables in total to the head of the unit!
What I find quite bizarre is that the two load bearing cables go to two points and thus yield two sepparate effective camming angles. This is quite different from the original design which had only 1 cable.
I am puzzled why they did this and how that can obtain consistant effective cam angle performance with this setup.
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 14, 2010, 4:23 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 14, 2010, 1:58 PM
Post #23 of 140
(20011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
acorneau wrote: To me it looks like the cable is looped around a silver pin and isn't two separate cables.
Of course! *slaps forehead*
Thanks....
Yeah their original design called for a cable termination. But a loop while less elogant is more reliable.
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 14, 2010, 2:04 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
patmay81
Jul 14, 2010, 3:17 PM
Post #24 of 140
(19941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 1081
|
carabiner96 wrote: patmay81 wrote: Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago. have you ever even placed a cam... any cam... ever? His name is Bolter.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 15, 2010, 3:03 AM
Post #25 of 140
(18354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
Even the better pictures hide details, - but - I don't the the multiple attachment pints are change camming angle, I think they are intended to give more usable rotation.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 15, 2010, 5:50 AM
Post #26 of 140
(6057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
mheyman wrote: Even the better pictures hide details, - but - I don't the the multiple attachment pints are change camming angle, I think they are intended to give more usable rotation.
The angle between the load point and the axle changes. Thus the attachment point is essential to the camming angle. The arc of the surface in which the cable bends over is quite important.
However as acorneau rightly pointed out it isn't multiple attachments it is simply one looped attachment wrapped around a pin.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 15, 2010, 1:25 PM
Post #27 of 140
(5999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
Yes, I see one attachement point. It looks to me as though the cable bends arouind a first pin and is attached at a second higher pin. Yes the camming angle changes with rotation. I’m thinking the odd cam shape compensates for this! Seems to me (without modeling) more rotation is available.
As I wrote from the pictures alone there are details missind in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 15, 2010, 1:55 PM
Post #28 of 140
(5981 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
mheyman wrote: I’m thinking the odd cam shape compensates for this!
Seems to me (without modeling) more rotation is available.
You are correct. The unit has a nominal camming angle of 20 on the cam shape but has an effective camming angle of around 13. Overall though it only seems to gain around 30% range using this technique. This is similar or a little better that the gains achieved by using a dual axle design.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 15, 2010, 2:39 PM
Post #29 of 140
(5963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
It's not the range that makes these things interesting to me. It's the direct loading, which supposedly acts a little like positraction for the cam lobes -- "patented Direct Loading Camming Device system (US patent 7,014,956) applies a perfectly equalized load directly onto each lobe, eliminating the risk of inactive lobes and therefore any outbalanced forces that might compromise cam placement stability. Where rock contact with four cam lobes is not possible, Totem Cam still offers the option to load just two lobes."
They're also ridiculously flexible. Unless something has changed from the prototype I fondled at an OR show a couple years ago, they're more flexible than any other active cam available.
I'll email and ask what the availability is. If they're ready to ship when my next paycheck come in, I'm almost certainly going risk the dough to buy at least one.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 15, 2010, 2:52 PM
Post #30 of 140
(5951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
j_ung wrote: It's not the range that makes these things interesting to me.
Oh for sure! But it is range that makes a cam a cam. Without range a cam is just a nut! By comfortably achieving a range comparable to C4s they have given themselves the opportunity to be competitive in other desired qualities.
If you want a decent dependable cam with good range the C4s & Dragons fit the bill. If you want lighter and slightly lower range the Metolius and WC have other offerings.
Totem cams offer unparrelleled flexibility and holding power in flares. I'm not sure I can appreciate how useful this may or may not be until I try them out on real rock.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 15, 2010, 3:10 PM
Post #31 of 140
(5941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Aye, good points. I'm gonna risk it, though. The first time i saw them, I hated them. The first time I held them, though, I was more than a little impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 15, 2010, 4:16 PM
Post #32 of 140
(5908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
For free climbing, I'll wait to play with them myself before making any judgment, though I have to say at the outset that they're damn sexy.
For clean aid climbing, they are nothing short of revolutionary. If I did much aid, I'd buy a full set yesterday.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 16, 2010, 1:01 AM
Post #33 of 140
(5850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Word is they'll accept pre orders starting 7/16. Shipping begins 8/1. $80 each. Free shipping on a whole set.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 16, 2010, 1:52 AM
Post #34 of 140
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
rightarmbad
Jul 16, 2010, 11:12 AM
Post #36 of 140
(5754 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 218
|
At that price, they should come in cheaper than the retail of most cams in Australia.
Something is seriously wrong with gear prices over here.
Maybe the direct selling route is a good idea....
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 16, 2010, 3:07 PM
Post #37 of 140
(5704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
j_ung wrote: It's not the range that makes these things interesting to me. It's the direct loading, which supposedly acts a little like positraction for the cam lobes..."
I agree. I was was just commenting on the design, and I am not even sure about what I see in the pictures.
Even more interesting it now seems to me that the the lobes are not identical or mirror images. Each pair seems to have what I will call a "load cam" and a "trigger cam". The fastening/rotation I noted is only on the "trigger cams" where the cable is looped around a pin. Connecting cables pass through the the "load cams"! Very different. Yes despite my names, all the cams will bear loads in a normal placement.
Added: Also seems to me that this design might be a bit directional and load only two cams in some situations - exactly what they are supposed to eliminate. The triggers are not going to stretch, but with different amount of rotation, one side might end up longer than the other. Then if the cam is loaded from some angles only the short side might ended loaded. Anyone else see this?
( I really should wait to see these. )
j_ung wrote: They're also ridiculously flexible.
Not a plus in terms of ease of placement in my gumby hands. Thats one of the reasons I don't like Zeros.
(This post was edited by mheyman on Jul 16, 2010, 3:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 16, 2010, 4:14 PM
Post #38 of 140
(5675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
mheyman wrote: j_ung wrote: They're also ridiculously flexible. Not a plus in terms of ease of placement in my gumby hands. Thats one of the reasons I don't like Zeros.
Yah, I hear you. But, if I think of all the times I've been worried about a piece of gear holding a fall, my impression is that slightly more than half of those have been because the placement was in a shallow horizontal. That could certainly be because of what I like to climb. I think I enjoy facey trad climbs more than anything else, on which I seem to run across this a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jul 16, 2010, 5:30 PM
Post #39 of 140
(5657 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
acorneau wrote: patto wrote: There are two weight bearing cables going to each lobe. Making twelve cables in total to the head of the unit! [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/QualityInnovation/BerrikuntzaWeb.JPG[/image] To me it looks like the cable is looped around a silver pin and isn't two separate cables. [Edit for proper image.]
small cable in tight radius round a pin overlapping each other...
I do not know but anyone with any sort of mechanical knowledge will tell you that 2+2 aint 5
|
|
|
|
|
kane_schutzman
Jul 16, 2010, 5:34 PM
Post #40 of 140
(5649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2005
Posts: 896
|
majid_sabet wrote: acorneau wrote: patto wrote: There are two weight bearing cables going to each lobe. Making twelve cables in total to the head of the unit! [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/QualityInnovation/BerrikuntzaWeb.JPG[/image] To me it looks like the cable is looped around a silver pin and isn't two separate cables. [Edit for proper image.] small cable in tight radius round a pin overlapping each other... I do not know but anyone with any sort of mechanical knowledge will tell you that 2+2 aint 5
fuck you majid
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jul 16, 2010, 6:22 PM
Post #42 of 140
(5617 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
kane_schutzman wrote: majid_sabet wrote: acorneau wrote: patto wrote: There are two weight bearing cables going to each lobe. Making twelve cables in total to the head of the unit! [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/QualityInnovation/BerrikuntzaWeb.JPG[/image] To me it looks like the cable is looped around a silver pin and isn't two separate cables. [Edit for proper image.] small cable in tight radius round a pin overlapping each other... I do not know but anyone with any sort of mechanical knowledge will tell you that 2+2 aint 5 fuck you majid
wait cowboy
this sh8t is too hot to touch. give it some time and we will see how it would handles.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 16, 2010, 6:34 PM
Post #43 of 140
(5602 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
acorneau wrote: I'm not sure where you're seeing that. To me it appears that both lobes are rigged the same way the the "looped cable around a pin" system. [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/TheMostVersatile/BuruZabalerakWeb.jpg[/image] [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/UniqueCapabilities/30flaredWeb.JPG[/image]
You are right, Those pics don't look at all like what I was thinking. The second pin is a cam stop then?
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Jul 16, 2010, 7:43 PM
Post #45 of 140
(5561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
j_ung wrote: mheyman wrote: j_ung wrote: They're also ridiculously flexible. Not a plus in terms of ease of placement in my gumby hands. Thats one of the reasons I don't like Zeros. Yah, I hear you. But, if I think of all the times I've been worried about a piece of gear holding a fall, my impression is that slightly more than half of those have been because the placement was in a shallow horizontal. That could certainly be because of what I like to climb. I think I enjoy facey trad climbs more than anything else, on which I seem to run across this a lot.
I think it's "where" rather than "what". There are more horizontal crack features in the New than most trad climbing areas except the gunks, probably. You don't run into that kind of placement on granite as much.
I definitely want to hold one of these in my hands before I fork out for them, but they look pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 16, 2010, 8:43 PM
Post #46 of 140
(5539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Jul 16, 2010, 9:01 PM
Post #47 of 140
(5526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
adatesman wrote: These diagrams from their patent may help explain things as well:
Those look quite a bit different than the final version.
(But thanks anyway!)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 16, 2010, 9:43 PM
Post #48 of 140
(5512 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jul 16, 2010, 10:46 PM
Post #49 of 140
(5485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
It's a classic pig in a poke deal. You pay and then if it sucks you still own it. For $80 -I'll wait. And I'm a serious gear whore.
The huge issue I see, is what made Aliens so great was that the head was soft and would flop easily to any direction where a placement was good. Wild Country Zeros have that function currently with the Mastercams not far behind. Yet the price on both is significantly less than these Totems, and you can even borrow your buddies first to see if you like them before you plunk down the change. With these things, you go get the bank loan first, then after your purse is empty, you will find out if you got door number 1, door number 2 - or door number 3.
No thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 16, 2010, 11:08 PM
Post #50 of 140
(6085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
billcoe_ wrote: It's a classic pig in a poke deal. You pay and then if it sucks you still own it. For $80 -I'll wait. And I'm a serious gear whore. The huge issue I see, is what made Aliens so great was that the head was soft and would flop easily to any direction where a placement was good. Wild Country Zeros have that function currently with the Mastercams not far behind. Yet the price on both is significantly less than these Totems, and you can even borrow your buddies first to see if you like them before you plunk down the change. With these things, you go get the bank loan first, then after your purse is empty, you will find out if you got door number 1, door number 2 - or door number 3. No thanks.
You could sell off a couple of those titanium nut tools or one of your 19 hammers and try one out.
As an aside, I see this is the first cam since the cch patent expired to use the internal cam springs.
|
|
|
|
|
kane_schutzman
Jul 17, 2010, 12:39 AM
Post #51 of 140
(6978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2005
Posts: 896
|
Right,
So who is definitely purchasing oneand writing up a review? Anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 17, 2010, 12:42 PM
Post #53 of 140
(6923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
kane_schutzman wrote: Right, So who is definitely purchasing oneand writing up a review? Anyone?
Once I get my next paycheck, I think I may go ahead and buy a couple.
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Jul 17, 2010, 12:45 PM
Post #54 of 140
(6920 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
There are several of you that want to try them out. Why not pool together, buy a full set to get the free shipping, and then divide out the cams once in the states.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 17, 2010, 12:57 PM
Post #55 of 140
(6911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Sure, I'm game. Paypal the dough to one person, plus domestic shipping. The international will be free. I can't do anything until August, though.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 17, 2010, 2:40 PM
Post #56 of 140
(6889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
adatesman wrote: Let's take this picture:
Thanks Aric. If I can get a TIFF viewer to work I'll read the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 17, 2010, 2:56 PM
Post #57 of 140
(6885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 17, 2010, 3:40 PM
Post #58 of 140
(6871 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
billcoe_ wrote: The huge issue I see, is what made Aliens so great was that the head was soft and would flop easily to any direction where a placement was good. Wild Country Zeros have that function
That is as much a liability as strength. It makes them harder to place and at least in small sizes like Zeros more likely to get stuck.
patto wrote: How many cams do you know can do this? ...These cams have capabilities that no other cam has.
Place them using only two cams? If you do this the strength is halved and you can do this with most traditional four cam units. (I would not consider Link Cams traditional.)
Place them in flairs? I think we need to fully understand the camming angle, application of force and the tradeoffs these entail before we consider this true and entirely beneficial. Totem certainly hasn’t explained much on their web site.
That said I’ll volunteer to order the full set if and take one if the others pay up front including about $5 for packing and reshipping (unless they are local).
For $80 -I'll wait. And I'm a serious gear whore."" These are mutually exclusive statements!
(This post was edited by mheyman on Jul 17, 2010, 9:11 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Bolter
Jul 17, 2010, 9:00 PM
Post #59 of 140
(6821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2009
Posts: 50
|
In reply to: You could sell off a couple of those titanium nut tools or one of your 19 hammers and try one out. As an aside, I see this is the first cam since the cch patent expired to use the internal cam springs.
Wrong on the springs. They are like the C3s.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 17, 2010, 9:04 PM
Post #60 of 140
(6819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bolter
Jul 17, 2010, 9:28 PM
Post #61 of 140
(6803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2009
Posts: 50
|
I can take a picture of ANY cam just like that. Lay it on the side and hold it from the bottom. Just like this picture.
For Totum to proof it, send it to Aric and pull it.
patto wrote: How many cams do you know can do this? [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/UniqueCapabilities/30flaredWeb.JPG[/image] Or this? [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/UniqueCapabilities/2EspekaWeb.JPG[/image] These cams have capabilities that no other cam has. I'm not sure how beneficial these capabilities are to regular climbing but I think this is some I'll find out by climbing with them. I love my Wild Country Zeros but I don't see them as even comparable. |
|
|
|
|
Khoi
Jul 17, 2010, 9:32 PM
Post #62 of 140
(6800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2008
Posts: 294
|
adatesman wrote: Bolter wrote: In reply to: You could sell off a couple of those titanium nut tools or one of your 19 hammers and try one out. As an aside, I see this is the first cam since the cch patent expired to use the internal cam springs. Wrong on the springs. They are like the C3s. Huh. I wonder if it'll infringe on one of BD's C3 patents? I can't see BD letting that fly for long...
Then we should order a set ASAP! 
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 18, 2010, 12:18 AM
Post #63 of 140
(6765 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
adatesman wrote: FWIW, Splittercams (both the newer Trango ones and the original SG 2cams and 4cams) can do the 2nd picture.
mheyman wrote: Place them using only two cams? If you do this the strength is halved and you can do this with most traditional four cam units.
True. But I would readily trust these babies in two cam mode over any other cam. The other ones its impossible to align the force in the correct direction (along the plane of the cam lobes). The camming action is compromised.
mheyman wrote: Place them in flairs? I think we need to fully understand the camming angle, application of force and the tradeoffs these entail before we consider this true and entirely beneficial. Totem certainly hasn’t explained much on their web site.
Very true. I'm not going to take whippers on 40degree flairs on the first day i get these. Alot of playing is needed. As far as the forces go these can be calculated by the angle between the contact point and the cable attachment. 7 degrees (as opposed to 13-16) means a doubling of the forces. Mild flares would be ok, severe flares if it holds then you might get deformation and failure at low fall loads.
Bolter wrote: Wrong on the springs. They are like the C3s.
EDIT: I agree.
Anyway, like most here I think can agree, hands on use is necessary to understand the real world capabilities of these. I'm excited by I can't guarantee that these wont be another ultra niche product with few real advantages.
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 18, 2010, 4:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Bolter
Jul 18, 2010, 1:50 AM
Post #64 of 140
(6741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2009
Posts: 50
|
Looking at the wrong springs????
Those four are the only visible. Patto, are these cams hollow and have hidden internal springs.
Looking at the pictures, drawings, and patent.... those are all the springs.
How many springs and wires does this cam need????
I don't see there being a quick fix when a wire gets snagged or broken much less a good repair.
Patto, are you in Spain working for Totem??
(This post was edited by Bolter on Jul 18, 2010, 1:51 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 18, 2010, 4:52 AM
Post #65 of 140
(6698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Bolter wrote: Looking at the wrong springs????
Sorry.  I blame the lack of coffee. I ran with the same incorrect assumption caughtinside made which instigated your comment. I have coffee now.
Bolter wrote: I don't see there being a quick fix when a wire gets snagged or broken much less a good repair.
Bolter wrote: Patto, are you in Spain working for Totem??
Are asking me if I am biased? Well maybe. I'm excited and enthusiastic about this design because it truly is different and ground breaking. As I said in my last post it may not be that useful.
(Another totally underrated design i believe is the Metolius SuperCam. It achieves great range with simple study design. I don't like double stems though.)
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 18, 2010, 5:05 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Jul 18, 2010, 9:42 AM
Post #66 of 140
(6671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
looks like trigger handle is rather very close to the head. Gonna have to go with the very shallow placements
20 degree angle, will be hard to get out.
Aliens were harder to get out with their bigger than average angle, these are going to be the royal pain.
But I think they will complement c3s nicely for larger sizes and same narrow head, something I wanted for a while
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 23, 2010, 11:04 PM
Post #68 of 140
(6490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Totem cams no available for pre-order. Shipping August 9th! 
I'm going to try to scrape some money together.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 25, 2010, 2:55 PM
Post #69 of 140
(6401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
suprasoup wrote: So is anyone else interested in splitting a set up? I'd be willing to fork over the cash for one, possibly two of em.
See my post?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 25, 2010, 3:09 PM
Post #70 of 140
(6396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 25, 2010, 3:33 PM
Post #71 of 140
(6384 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
adatesman wrote: mheyman wrote: suprasoup wrote: So is anyone else interested in splitting a set up? I'd be willing to fork over the cash for one, possibly two of em. See my post? Or mine? 
I am certainly willing to send you money if you want to handle it. Heck I'll deliver it along with beer for immediate consumption! Noone has PMed me.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 25, 2010, 5:52 PM
Post #72 of 140
(6360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 25, 2010, 5:59 PM
Post #73 of 140
(6356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I need to get another paycheck under me first, then I'll come back to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jul 27, 2010, 8:17 PM
Post #75 of 140
(6771 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
patto wrote: How many cams do you know can do this? [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/UniqueCapabilities/30flaredWeb.JPG[/image]
I know of lots. All of my DB, Trango, OP, etc., cams can be photographed inside of a crack like that.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Jul 27, 2010, 8:34 PM
Post #76 of 140
(6785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
drector wrote: patto wrote: How many cams do you know can do this? [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/UniqueCapabilities/30flaredWeb.JPG[/image] I know of lots. All of my DB, Trango, OP, etc., cams can be photographed inside of a crack like that. Dave
Have you seen the video?
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 27, 2010, 8:55 PM
Post #77 of 140
(6772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
kane_schutzman wrote: Right, So who is definitely purchasing oneand writing up a review? Anyone?
oh, im sure a review will rear its ugly head at some point- rc.com has, afterall, been the foremost climbing media outlet that has been covering these little beauties for the last three years....
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Jul 28, 2010, 7:50 PM
Post #78 of 140
(6632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
patto wrote: How many cams do you know can do this? [image]http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/images/UniqueCapabilities/30flaredWeb.JPG[/image]
The 40 deg flare claim seems pretty suspect to me. Sure their cams can physically operate within a 40 degree flare but that is completely conditional on having a very high coefficient of friction, more than the conservative estimate of 0.25 which dictates a 4:1 caming ratio or traditional 14 degree cam angle.
A normal cam will pop it's lobes in a 28 degree flare, but this is also the conservative limit most commonly used for any friction holding metal on rock device. Totem cams are just going beyond the conservative range. That means that only certain textures of rock can actually hold a 40 degree flare. Those same rocks could also potentially hold traditional cams with 20 degree cam angles, but you don't see anyone making those because they aren't very safe.
Their design lets them get more torque on the lobes, but it doesn't negate the maximum angle that you can apply a force on a rock surface without slipping. If 14 degrees is the slipping angle for friction of metal on rock, you could get a power jack into that flare and it will still pop out at 28 degrees.
If people start buying these things to pop into 40 degree flares, they will be disappointed or hurt.
It's simple physics. If the coefficient of friction is 0.25, then 28 degrees is the maximum angle you can squeeze something into a flare using only friction. Any demonstration of larger flares is just rock that has a larger coefficient of friction.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Jul 28, 2010, 8:14 PM
Post #79 of 140
(6635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
vegastradguy wrote: ... covering these little beauties for the last three years....
I'm beginning to think these things are an internet hoax. If they're so bad-ass, then why is it taking them so long to get them out for review? It's not like they'd need to build a fricken' factory. Just machine a few dozen up and send them to someone for a test drive.
The slow pace is doing nothing for my confidence ... quite the opposite, actually.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 29, 2010, 1:30 AM
Post #80 of 140
(6598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
well, theres actually lots of legit reasons for why they have been so delayed...but, if it comforts you to know, my review set arrived on monday afternoon, so they are in hand at this point. i also know of another review set that will be arriving in the states shortly (probably within the week if it hasnt already).
i probably wont get a chance to play with them for another few weeks (too goddamn hot), but my fellow gear reviewer will probably have 100 pitches on them by then and a verdict.
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Jul 29, 2010, 1:33 AM
Post #81 of 140
(6595 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
If you're fellow reviewer can't get out then send them up to Alberta and I'll review them.
I'm a staunch trad climber BTW, and can guarantee they will be used on new routes.
(This post was edited by the_climber on Jul 29, 2010, 1:33 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 29, 2010, 1:40 AM
Post #82 of 140
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
the_climber wrote: If you're fellow reviewer can't get out then send them up to Alberta and I'll review them. I'm a staunch trad climber BTW, and can guarantee they will be used on new routes.
well, my fellow reviewer is doing it for a separate site and i'll crosslink his review on this one, so its unlikely he'll be willing to give them up, but nice try!
|
|
|
|
|
crackers
Jul 29, 2010, 3:29 AM
Post #83 of 140
(6562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 416
|
shimanilami wrote: I'm beginning to think these things are an internet hoax. If they're so bad-ass, then why is it taking them so long to get them out for review? It's not like they'd need to build a fricken' factory. Just machine a few dozen up and send them to someone for a test drive.
Actually, to have a review done and published you'd need to a) have your factory set up, b) have the factory pass the iso 9001, c) pass the relevant CE/UIAA safety tests, d) have all of your legal usage documentation vetted and approved, e) HAVE YOUR INSURANCE VALIDATE THE ABOVE, e) then send them out for review.
Editorial reviews are done JUST before things go to market, so that these reviews are published when the things can be bought.
just my $0.02 after several years running a manufacturing company. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jul 29, 2010, 4:08 AM
Post #84 of 140
(6549 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jul 29, 2010, 4:15 AM
Post #85 of 140
(6544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
adatesman wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, Graham, but IIRC the UIAA/CE thing applies only to goods for sale in the EU. Last I checked there was no certification needed for sale in the US, whether ISO9xxx or CE/UIAA. I seem to recall a certain US-based cam company only reinstating their CE certification quite recently (coinciding with the company being put up for sale), despite being in business for quite a long time and being quite popular.
US does not requires any certification period. certification makes it easier to buy liability insurance in case of SOL.Also certification is not mandatory in EU either.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jul 29, 2010, 4:50 AM
Post #86 of 140
(6525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
shimanilami wrote: vegastradguy wrote: ... covering these little beauties for the last three years.... I'm beginning to think these things are an internet hoax. If they're so bad-ass, then why is it taking them so long to get them out for review? It's not like they'd need to build a fricken' factory. Just machine a few dozen up and send them to someone for a test drive. The slow pace is doing nothing for my confidence ... quite the opposite, actually.
Ironic you posted this today since I just got them in the mail this morning:
I'm probably the other reviewer that vegastradguy is referring to. I'll be testing them out, but possibly not at the pace that he expects. I've got a busy summer. Still, I plan to put them through the runner and in the end I'll post up my review here and on other websites. The testing begins this weekend at Tahquitz. So, since I have my paws on these things, what do you guys want to know about them?
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
brenta
Jul 29, 2010, 6:02 AM
Post #87 of 140
(6503 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2006
Posts: 50
|
Rudmin wrote: The 40 deg flare claim seems pretty suspect to me. Sure their cams can physically operate within a 40 degree flare but that is completely conditional on having a very high coefficient of friction, more than the conservative estimate of 0.25 which dictates a 4:1 caming ratio or traditional 14 degree cam angle. A normal cam will pop it's lobes in a 28 degree flare, but this is also the conservative limit most commonly used for any friction holding metal on rock device. Totem cams are just going beyond the conservative range. That means that only certain textures of rock can actually hold a 40 degree flare. Those same rocks could also potentially hold traditional cams with 20 degree cam angles, but you don't see anyone making those because they aren't very safe. Their design lets them get more torque on the lobes, but it doesn't negate the maximum angle that you can apply a force on a rock surface without slipping. If 14 degrees is the slipping angle for friction of metal on rock, you could get a power jack into that flare and it will still pop out at 28 degrees. If people start buying these things to pop into 40 degree flares, they will be disappointed or hurt. It's simple physics. If the coefficient of friction is 0.25, then 28 degrees is the maximum angle you can squeeze something into a flare using only friction. Any demonstration of larger flares is just rock that has a larger coefficient of friction.
The constraint that holds for all cams is that the ratio Fl/Fn should not exceed mu.
For regular cams, Fl/Fn equals tan(beta), where beta is the cam angle, but for Totem Cams, Fl/Fn is less than tan(beta). Hence, the same load produces more outward force than a conventional cam with the same angle.
EDITED to add: This greater outward force, however, in a downward flared crack has a downward component, which must be overcome by the upward component of the frictional force. In a conventional cam, this requires tan(beta) < tan(phi), where beta is the cam angle and phi is half the angle between the crack faces.
For a Totem cam, beta should be replaced by the effective cam angle, which is the ratio between frictional force and normal force. This angle is about 13 degrees instead of about 20.
The friction coefficient does not play a role in this derivation.
(This post was edited by brenta on Jul 29, 2010, 2:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 29, 2010, 2:38 PM
Post #88 of 140
(6460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
adatesman wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, Graham, but IIRC the UIAA/CE thing applies only to goods for sale in the EU. Last I checked there was no certification needed for sale in the US, whether ISO9xxx or CE/UIAA. I seem to recall a certain US-based cam company only reinstating their CE certification quite recently (coinciding with the company being put up for sale), despite being in business for quite a long time and being quite popular.
Its true that goods sold in the US do not require CE Cert (but afaik, goods in europe do, or UIAA cert)- but by and large, its one of those certifications that you kinda should have because consumers are looking for it.
also, i dont actually know if by being manufactured in Spain they are required by Spain to have their CE cert before being able to be exported for sale to other countries- probably not, but who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Jul 29, 2010, 2:48 PM
Post #89 of 140
(6452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
majid_sabet wrote: or may be I am just blind and a dumbass
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Jul 29, 2010, 2:57 PM
Post #90 of 140
(6443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
bandycoot wrote: I'm probably the other reviewer that vegastradguy is referring to. I'll be testing them out, but possibly not at the pace that he expects. I've got a busy summer. Still, I plan to put them through the runner and in the end I'll post up my review here and on other websites. The testing begins this weekend at Tahquitz. So, since I have my paws on these things, what do you guys want to know about them? Josh
I really think the biggest question on everyone's mind is, "is there potential in these to revolutionize traditional climbing?" Is the first person on the block who gets a set of these going to be able to put up a slew of FAs, or are the funky placements that Totem cams will hold in too rare to make a big difference?
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 29, 2010, 2:58 PM
Post #91 of 140
(6440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
mtnkid85 wrote: acorneau wrote: There are several of you that want to try them out. Why not pool together, buy a full set to get the free shipping, and then divide out the cams once in the states. Alright so a set is 5 units. So we need 5 people to agree to throw down the 85 dollars to split the set (assume 5 for shipping). So far in this thread we have: J ung Mheyman Suprasoup adatesman(?) Patto(?) I would love to get one, but I really shouldnt be spending the money right now. Looking on the website shipping for one cam is like 9.50 so we would really only be saving less than 5 bucks if your only getting one cam anyway. It also looks like the free shipping is on any 5 cams so we could order the 5 sizes each person wants rather than the entire set.
You guys still doing this? I could be tempted to be in on it.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jul 29, 2010, 3:20 PM
Post #92 of 140
(6423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
johnwesely wrote: bandycoot wrote: I'm probably the other reviewer that vegastradguy is referring to. I'll be testing them out, but possibly not at the pace that he expects. I've got a busy summer. Still, I plan to put them through the runner and in the end I'll post up my review here and on other websites. The testing begins this weekend at Tahquitz. So, since I have my paws on these things, what do you guys want to know about them? Josh I really think the biggest question on everyone's mind is, "is there potential in these to revolutionize traditional climbing?" Is the first person on the block who gets a set of these going to be able to put up a slew of FAs, or are the funky placements that Totem cams will hold in too rare to make a big difference?
Well, I'll do my best at throwing these things in funky placements, setting good gear below, and jumping off... Maybe I can answer some of those questions, but I don't think there is the revolutionary potential you're imagining. You're talking about marginal placements suddenly becoming bomber and I don't think that's going to consistently happen with these things. I also think someone would get hurt if they made that assumption and pushed the cams limits assuming that these things would hold everything. That said, I can't wait to get these out on the rock to see what they can do!
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Jul 29, 2010, 3:28 PM
Post #93 of 140
(6416 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
bandycoot wrote: johnwesely wrote: bandycoot wrote: I'm probably the other reviewer that vegastradguy is referring to. I'll be testing them out, but possibly not at the pace that he expects. I've got a busy summer. Still, I plan to put them through the runner and in the end I'll post up my review here and on other websites. The testing begins this weekend at Tahquitz. So, since I have my paws on these things, what do you guys want to know about them? Josh I really think the biggest question on everyone's mind is, "is there potential in these to revolutionize traditional climbing?" Is the first person on the block who gets a set of these going to be able to put up a slew of FAs, or are the funky placements that Totem cams will hold in too rare to make a big difference? Well, I'll do my best at throwing these things in funky placements, setting good gear below, and jumping off... Maybe I can answer some of those questions, but I don't think there is the revolutionary potential you're imagining. You're talking about marginal placements suddenly becoming bomber and I don't think that's going to consistently happen with these things. I also think someone would get hurt if they made that assumption and pushed the cams limits assuming that these things would hold everything. That said, I can't wait to get these out on the rock to see what they can do! Josh
That is sort of what I figured. I imagine it will vary significantly by rock type and area also.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 29, 2010, 3:31 PM
Post #94 of 140
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
vegastradguy wrote: Its true that goods sold in the US do not require CE Cert (but afaik, goods in europe do, or UIAA cert)- but by and large, its one of those certifications that you kinda should have because consumers are looking for it. also, i dont actually know if by being manufactured in Spain they are required by Spain to have their CE cert before being able to be exported for sale to other countries- probably not, but who knows?
To sell climbing equipment in the EU you must have CE/EN certification. The UIAA Safety Label is optional and anyway depends on the product having CE certification.
One can manufacture anything in Europe without CE certification (obviously as we have to make stuff to the standards required in other countries for export), it is the selling or `introducing to the market´ stage that requires conformity. The `introducing to the market´is to cover not only selling, to stop McDonalds giving away poisonous toys to little kiddies for example.
Be a brave man that put cams on the market without certification though!
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 29, 2010, 3:34 PM
Post #95 of 140
(6406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
I see potential for these things in shallow slots in dihedrals, where only two lobes contact in the slot. Looking at this pic from one of the documents, the cam could be placed in such a way that the outside lobe contacts the side wall, to counter the twist... in this case it would twist counter-clockwise.
|
|
Attachments:
|
totemtwolobe.jpg
(21.6 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 29, 2010, 3:54 PM
Post #96 of 140
(6384 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
JimTitt wrote: vegastradguy wrote: Its true that goods sold in the US do not require CE Cert (but afaik, goods in europe do, or UIAA cert)- but by and large, its one of those certifications that you kinda should have because consumers are looking for it. also, i dont actually know if by being manufactured in Spain they are required by Spain to have their CE cert before being able to be exported for sale to other countries- probably not, but who knows? To sell climbing equipment in the EU you must have CE/EN certification. The UIAA Safety Label is optional and anyway depends on the product having CE certification. One can manufacture anything in Europe without CE certification (obviously as we have to make stuff to the standards required in other countries for export), it is the selling or `introducing to the market´ stage that requires conformity. The `introducing to the market´is to cover not only selling, to stop McDonalds giving away poisonous toys to little kiddies for example. Be a brave man that put cams on the market without certification though!
yeah, to be honest, the way these things work is so unique, i'd kinda want an independent lab to test them before having my customers test them with their lives!
i know the guys who run totem, and to be honest, they really are good guys who are trying to do everything by the book and the CE cert for them was a no-brainer- just something they had to have before bringing them to market.
good to know about the CE cert info in europe- thanks jim.
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Jul 29, 2010, 3:55 PM
Post #97 of 140
(6383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
brenta wrote: Rudmin wrote: The 40 deg flare claim seems pretty suspect to me. Sure their cams can physically operate within a 40 degree flare but that is completely conditional on having a very high coefficient of friction, more than the conservative estimate of 0.25 which dictates a 4:1 caming ratio or traditional 14 degree cam angle. A normal cam will pop it's lobes in a 28 degree flare, but this is also the conservative limit most commonly used for any friction holding metal on rock device. Totem cams are just going beyond the conservative range. That means that only certain textures of rock can actually hold a 40 degree flare. Those same rocks could also potentially hold traditional cams with 20 degree cam angles, but you don't see anyone making those because they aren't very safe. Their design lets them get more torque on the lobes, but it doesn't negate the maximum angle that you can apply a force on a rock surface without slipping. If 14 degrees is the slipping angle for friction of metal on rock, you could get a power jack into that flare and it will still pop out at 28 degrees. If people start buying these things to pop into 40 degree flares, they will be disappointed or hurt. It's simple physics. If the coefficient of friction is 0.25, then 28 degrees is the maximum angle you can squeeze something into a flare using only friction. Any demonstration of larger flares is just rock that has a larger coefficient of friction. Let Fl be the frictional force along one face of the crack and Fn the force normal to the face of the crack. Let mu be the coefficient of static friction between cam lobe and rock. The constraint that holds for all cams is that the ratio Fl/Fn should not exceed mu. For regular cams, Fl/Fn equals tan(beta), where beta is the cam angle, but for Totem Cams, Fl/Fn is less than tan(beta). Hence, the same load produces more outward force than a conventional cam with the same angle. EDITED to add: This greater outward force, however, in a downward flared crack has a downward component, which must be overcome by the upward component of the frictional force. In a conventional cam, this requires tan(beta) < tan(phi), where beta is the cam angle and phi is half the angle between the crack faces. For a Totem cam, beta should be replaced by the effective cam angle, which is the ratio between frictional force and normal force. This angle is about 13 degrees instead of about 20. The friction coefficient does not play a role in this derivation.
I think you started to see the problem but then ignored it. I am not talking about how the Totem cam works. I know how it works. But it still can't defy physics. It's not about the cam itself. Here I have drawn you an illustration explaining why the cam itself is irrelevant.
EDITED FOR PIC:
I have called it mystery cam. It is capable of producing any outward forces that you want. You can have a 100:1 ratio of downward force to outward force if you like, but so long as this cam is constrained to be in static equilibrium, it requires a coefficient of friction greater than 0.25 (0.34) to remain in a 40 deg flare.
The basic fact is that to support a downward pull, one of the contact forces must include an upward component. For any contact force to have an upward component, it must be at some angle greater than horizontal. If the flare is 40 degrees, a horizontal contact force would produce a contact angle of 20 degrees off of normal. An angle above horizontal will produce an angle greater than 20 degrees. If metal slips on rock at 14 degrees, then 20 degrees is out of the question. The result is that anything at all wedged into a 40 degree flare with a less than 0.34 coefficient of friction will fall out.
When they say that a Totem cam can operate in a 40 deg flare, they don't mention that it is conditional on having grippy conditions. A normal cam will pop out at 28 degrees no matter what the friction and should theoretically be guaranteed to hold on anything less than 28 degrees. A Totem cam will pop out at 40 degrees or whenever it exceeds the coefficient of friction. Somewhere between 28 degrees and 40 degrees it will fall out. Making performance claims on optimistic estimates of rock seems less than genuine to me. People are already lining up to buy these cams specifically for flares because of that 40 degree number.
Comprende?
(This post was edited by Rudmin on Jul 29, 2010, 3:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Jul 29, 2010, 4:20 PM
Post #98 of 140
(6364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
crackers wrote: shimanilami wrote: I'm beginning to think these things are an internet hoax. If they're so bad-ass, then why is it taking them so long to get them out for review? It's not like they'd need to build a fricken' factory. Just machine a few dozen up and send them to someone for a test drive. Actually, to have a review done and published you'd need to a) have your factory set up, b) have the factory pass the iso 9001, c) pass the relevant CE/UIAA safety tests, d) have all of your legal usage documentation vetted and approved, e) HAVE YOUR INSURANCE VALIDATE THE ABOVE, e) then send them out for review. Editorial reviews are done JUST before things go to market, so that these reviews are published when the things can be bought. just my $0.02 after several years running a manufacturing company. ;)
I'm interested in a functional design evaluation by an independent reviewer, which can be performed prior to establishing all your operational BS. After all, if your design sucks, who cares if you can manufacture it well?
But the point is moot. We'll be hearing reviews of manufactured product in short time.
|
|
|
|
|
brenta
Jul 29, 2010, 4:46 PM
Post #99 of 140
(7417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2006
Posts: 50
|
Rudmin wrote: I think you started to see the problem but then ignored it.
You have pointed out a bound that is based on the friction coefficient. I pointed out a bound that is based on the construction of the cam. You say that half the flare angle should not exceed the one at which the two materials start slipping. I say that the tangent of half the flare angle cannot exceed the ratio between frictional and normal forces that a given SLCD produces for an arbitrarily large friction coefficient. Otherwise the reaction at the crack face points down instead of up.
What caused me to be a little too terse is that I'm still somewhat incredulous of my own result. The equation is simple enough: Let Fa be the load: then Fa/2 + Fn*sin(phi) should equal Fl*cos(phi). Since Fa, Fl, and Fn are positive, this implies Fl*cos(phi) > Fn*sin(phi); that is, Fl/Fn > tan(phi). But Fl/Fn for the Totem Cam is allegedly roughly tan(13 degrees). So, how does it work? This even ignores the torsion springs, which tend to spit out the cam from a downward flaring crack.
EDITED to add: The ratio Fl/Fn comes out of the moment equation, and hence is not affected by the flare angle.
EDITED again to add: My mistake above is that for the Totem Cam, the moment equation does not change when the crack is flared, but the Fl/Fn ratio does, because one needs to substitute the vertical balance equation that depends on the flare angle. In particular, for phi=beta, Fl/Fn=tan(beta). End result: disregard the above.
(This post was edited by brenta on Jul 30, 2010, 1:01 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Jul 29, 2010, 4:47 PM
Post #100 of 140
(7418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
cracklover wrote: Rudmin wrote: The basic fact is that to support a downward pull, one of the contact forces must include an upward component. For any contact force to have an upward component, it must be at some angle greater than horizontal. If the flare is 40 degrees, a horizontal contact force would produce a contact angle of 20 degrees off of normal. An angle above horizontal will produce an angle greater than 20 degrees. If metal slips on rock at 14 degrees, then 20 degrees is out of the question. The result is that anything at all wedged into a 40 degree flare with a less than 0.34 coefficient of friction will fall out. No. You're considering the "horizontal" to be absolute, when it is actually relative to the rock. In other words, if you have a cam that contacts the rock at 14 degrees, then it contacts the rock at 14 degrees! It doesn't matter if the rock face is perfectly vertical, or 20 degrees off vertical. It still generates the same frictional force. GO
"Horizontal" is 90 degrees perpendicular to the direction of pull. Assuming the direction of pull is downwards, horizontal is the universally accepted definition of horizontal.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Jul 29, 2010, 10:55 PM
Post #101 of 140
(19096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
I just want to know the basics:
1. Are they easy to place? Are they too flexible/flexible enough?
2. Are they easy to clean?
3. Do they fit in the same spot that you know your green & yellow aliens dominate?
4. Are you actually willing to fall on them with only two lobes in?
5. Do they work well in flared cracks where we needed off-sets previously?
6. Are they really heavy?
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jul 30, 2010, 2:15 AM
Post #102 of 140
(19054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Seeing if they'll hold a fall with 2 lobes was literally on the top of my list of things to investigate. I've taken a 40' fall and was caught by two lobes of a 0.5 camalot, and I've taken repetitive small falls on 2 lobes of a blue alien so I have my hopes up. We'll see though. I may have just been lucky.
However, since they don't recommend falling on two lobes on their website, I'm not sure how fair it is to report the results... Definitely something for me to ponder.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Jul 30, 2010, 12:50 PM
Post #103 of 140
(19001 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
Where is everyone getting the idea that these cams look "sexy?" Sure, they promise functionality beyond current cams, but do you really believe they don't look like a toy? Compare with the Ukranian cams.
|
|
|
|
|
mattm
Jul 31, 2010, 9:24 PM
Post #104 of 140
(18929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
I think, if you're going to do a top notch review, you need to carefully compare and contrast these with what's out there already. People are looking at them for their unique design, sure but, they're also gonna want to know how they stack up against what they're already own. If someone tells me a new belay device is like an ATC guide but better in X ways, I've got a baseline to work with.
Things to cover in a review. Details of them on their own. Quality of Build, Weight, Smoothness of trigger, LOTS of PICS of how the direct loading works. Video would be better still. Then get into placements - Ease of placement and removal. How they do in funky placements (flares, 2 cams etc) How are they for horizontal placements?
THEN, lets see them compared to current cams out there. Based on their sizing, I'd just pick 2 and go from there. Pick the one that's closest in size to a green (best) or yellow alien and then one of the bigger ones (.75 or #1 camalot). Side by side pics of the Totems with: CCH Alien, Met TCU and Master Cams, BD stuff and WC Zeros would be ideal. Compare head width, stem length, cam sizing etc. I'm very interested in the trigger length and how DEEP you can place them. Also interested in the part near the head where all the wires "pass through". Does this affect placements in the small sizes?
Finally, do some real world placement comparisons. Find some pins scars, normal cracks etc etc and show us with pics and words how a Blue Totem Stacks up with the rest in various spots. Preferably do this on granite or some other rock that has a fair bit of variability to the crack shape. Hate reviews that use Desert Cracks with uniform shape. See below for some ideas.
OR
OR
|
|
|
|
|
marde
Aug 1, 2010, 10:33 AM
Post #105 of 140
(18867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2006
Posts: 169
|
Sorry no pictures, and no real comparison test only some firts impressions:
I just took the totem cams for climbing and didn't fall at all, neither on perfect placements nor on the poor ones.
What I can tell you they have a decent range and overlap.
The trigger action is really smooth.
The springs seem a little stronger than on other cams but slightly weaker than those on C3s.
Totem cams are more flexible than most other cams including the mastercams; about as flexible as aliens.
The green totem cam is even more flexible than my orange alien.
The head of the blue totem is about 1mm wider than on the yellow C3, when you only compare the lobes.
The axle has about the same width on both.
Blue to green all have narrower heads than comparable mastercams or aliens.
They fit in scars where otherwise only an offset alien would fit in.
It's next to impossible to overcam the totem cams, because the load bearing cables on the back of the lobe prevent further rotation.
My climbing partner and me never had trouble cleaning;
(at least not on the 14 pitches yesterday with 2 to 4 totem cams placed on every pitch.)
At the end of the day these were the cams I always grabbed first.
|
|
|
|
|
devkrev
Aug 1, 2010, 2:03 PM
Post #106 of 140
(18841 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 933
|
Good to hear they didn't get fixed easily/fall out/explode.
dev
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Aug 1, 2010, 4:10 PM
Post #107 of 140
(18812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
johnwesely wrote: I really think the biggest question on everyone's mind is, "is there potential in these to revolutionize traditional climbing?" Is the first person on the block who gets a set of these going to be able to put up a slew of FAs, or are the funky placements that Totem cams will hold in too rare to make a big difference?
I don't think the lack of cam placements has limited the real leading climbers out there very much. I expect the people in this thread are curious, and want to make easier climbs safer.
|
|
|
|
|
mattm
Aug 1, 2010, 9:18 PM
Post #108 of 140
(18761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
mheyman wrote: johnwesely wrote: I really think the biggest question on everyone's mind is, "is there potential in these to revolutionize traditional climbing?" Is the first person on the block who gets a set of these going to be able to put up a slew of FAs, or are the funky placements that Totem cams will hold in too rare to make a big difference? I don't think the lack of cam placements has limited the real leading climbers out there very much. I expect the people in this thread are curious, and want to make easier climbs safer.
2nd that. I don't think anyone thinks these things are gonna "revolutionize trad". Far from it. It's been a long time since anything like that has happened. Probably TCUs back in the day. Everything since has been a tweak or improvement to existing tech.
I think people want to know how they stack up against existing tech (and fallen from grace tech - CCH).
Me - I'm looking at triples in that size run and want to know if I go Mastceram/BD C4 or tottems.
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
Aug 5, 2010, 9:20 AM
Post #109 of 140
(18610 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
bandycoot wrote: Well, I'll do my best at throwing these things in funky placements, setting good gear below, and jumping off... Maybe I can answer some of those questions, but I don't think there is the revolutionary potential you're imagining. You're talking about marginal placements suddenly becoming bomber and I don't think that's going to consistently happen with these things. I also think someone would get hurt if they made that assumption and pushed the cams limits assuming that these things would hold everything. That said, I can't wait to get these out on the rock to see what they can do! Josh
Well... 
Yokese, impatient.... 
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Aug 8, 2010, 1:37 AM
Post #110 of 140
(18484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Just over 24hrs before totem cams start shipping. I hope the reviews will be coming out soon. I'm excited.
I haven't ordered one yet but I'm very tempted to do so if I can afford it. I'll probably get the small blue.
Half the reason I want one is just to show it off to my friends.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Aug 10, 2010, 12:31 AM
Post #111 of 140
(18378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
Does the width of the stem force you to place them in a more horizontal orientation than a similar sized alien in pin scars that bottom out? That sort of placement is the main reason I think C3s suck. Also, how did the compare in terms of range to your aliens? Did they seem to place nicely in comparable spots? The metolius cams are nice, but never seem to go in like they should because of their terrible cam angle...
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Aug 10, 2010, 2:29 PM
Post #113 of 140
(18310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
I'll try to write something up next week. I'm busy this week, and I'm hoping to get them out on the rock again this weekend at the Needles. I was planning on doing a preliminary post on them with specs and observations last weekend, but I was sick and just couldn't concentrate enough to accomplish the task.
Hopefully I'll get the chance to take some whips on them in various placements. I've also lined up a much more experienced aid climber than I to take them up a route. They might be able to provide a better comparison to aliens, but I haven't used aliens much in my climbing career. I've got a couple that I can compare things like head width though...
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 10, 2010, 2:54 PM
Post #114 of 140
(18296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
bandycoot wrote: I'll try to write something up next week. I'm busy this week, and I'm hoping to get them out on the rock again this weekend at the Needles. I was planning on doing a preliminary post on them with specs and observations last weekend, but I was sick and just couldn't concentrate enough to accomplish the task. Hopefully I'll get the chance to take some whips on them in various placements. I've also lined up a much more experienced aid climber than I to take them up a route. They might be able to provide a better comparison to aliens, but I haven't used aliens much in my climbing career. I've got a couple that I can compare things like head width though... Josh
Josh, without holding you to an opinion this early in the review process, do you have any initial impressions?
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Aug 10, 2010, 3:27 PM
Post #115 of 140
(18281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
I'm going to try to avoid writing the same thing over and over and try to do it in one long writeup. I have a lot of observations about them regarding their pluses and minuses already.
The two things that really need to be tested now are holding power and the ease of cleaning the things (no problems so far FYI), both of which I hope to start really testing out this weekend through a large volume of climbing and possibly intentional and unintentional falls.
I really was planning on doing the writeup last weekend and was bummed to be sick. I'll make it a priority as soon as I'm back from the Needles, and I'll have more experience with them.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 10, 2010, 6:46 PM
Post #116 of 140
(18233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Cool. Looking forward to it.
J
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Aug 11, 2010, 6:16 PM
Post #117 of 140
(18127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
Just saw something that precludes Totem cams directly loaded camming device patent and possibly the Trango Max Cam too.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Aug 11, 2010, 7:26 PM
Post #118 of 140
(18089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
I never understood why the loading point for the seismo wasn't at the axle. With the two axles, they can rotate around each other and fall out if the placement isn't ideal. It seems like you could do a similar thing by putting some cams on an axle inside one end of a big-bro and have a stem off of the axle. You could get a pretty crazy range for big placements that way.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Aug 13, 2010, 6:11 AM
Post #120 of 140
(17915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 13, 2010, 4:50 PM
Post #121 of 140
(17840 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Anyone found photos of the smaller ones? The two smallest sizes might actually, if they're as good as they promise, someday kick the green and yellow Aliens off my primary rack.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Aug 13, 2010, 7:15 PM
Post #122 of 140
(17800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
cracklover wrote: Anyone found photos of the smaller ones? The two smallest sizes might actually, if they're as good as they promise, someday kick the green and yellow Aliens off my primary rack. GO
I've got the whole set- the smallest is nearly identical to the green alien- in range and head width, looks very similar from above with the direct loading cables looking a lot like the internal springs on the alien.
I'll see if i can find a friend with a decent camera to get some pics uoloaded at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Aug 14, 2010, 9:03 AM
Post #123 of 140
(17744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
I am jonesing for any kind of review. How do they hold, how do they hold?!
Also, page turn for the win (PTFTW).
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 16, 2010, 3:15 AM
Post #124 of 140
(17654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
vegastradguy wrote: I've got the whole set- the smallest is nearly identical to the green alien- in range and head width, looks very similar from above with the direct loading cables looking a lot like the internal springs on the alien. I'll see if i can find a friend with a decent camera to get some pics uoloaded at some point.
Don't want or need pictures. We have pictures and we know what they look like. Looks don't matter here in either case. What do you guys think about them? Positives, negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Aug 17, 2010, 9:43 PM
Post #125 of 140
(17547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
Reviews are in at Mountain Project: http://www.mountainproject.com/...ams_in_slc/106849780
Seems like another cam on the market.
In reply to: First Impression: Definitely bulky, the "double U" sling set up and the flaring nature of the main wires make these things about 3.5" wide when racked. Racking a whole run on one harness loop is pushing it. (3 out of 5) Quality control seems high (5 out of 5), the anodization on the cam lobes is top notch. I worry about the small pins used to anchor the wires in the grooves on the cam lobes being popped out if you were really digging at it if it were overcammed and stuck. Cam action is not quite as smooth as other cams due to friction in the trigger/ main wires (you can feel them moving past eachother) but that isnt a big deal at all in my opinion, (4 out of 5) on trigger action. I think the falls were closer to 15+ feet as we were frequently landing next to the fixed pin on the face as you move out of the flare from the jug near the top. As Price said we expected them to hold just fine, its a cam, so, after confirming that they held just fine in a good placement, I placed a few marginal placements, and backed them up with (what else) a BD cam, and started ripping them out. Several placements I thought were marginal yet sufficient ripped, I do not believe this is do to the design aspects of the cam, as many other factors play into when a cam will or will not hold. From an aid only standpoint, when loading two lobes is desired, the design elements of this cam really shine through. With the main wires attached directly to the lobes, the loaded force is in a much more parallel plane than with a main hub/ axel design such as a BD cam where the force is shifted several centimeters out from the cam lobes, making the cam want to twist out of the placement. (5 out of 5) Overall: Again, Quality. The attention to detail and quality control on these things is outstanding. A little too bulky for my taste, I cannot see a whole lot gained over what is already on the market especially at the price unless you are consistently placing with only two lobes in the rock in an aid scenario. Ill give em 4 out of 5
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 17, 2010, 10:41 PM
Post #126 of 140
(6713 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Rudmin wrote: Reviews are in at Mountain Project: http://www.mountainproject.com/...ams_in_slc/106849780 From those first looks, just like the testers - I'll pass. ( "I normally climb on Metolius and BD and will continue to do so for now.") Price wrote: Totem Cams Adam and I took these up in the quartzite of Big Cottonwood Canyon near Salt Lake City, Utah to test them out. First thing that hit me as I picked up the cams was, "These cams are really cool looking, but there's a lot too them." That thought came true as I racked them up. They definitely take up some room on the gear loops. At the same time, they look really cool, and in my book, that scores some points. As I looked at how the cams are engineered, I was even more impressed by the engineering. If I'm understanding it correctly, and I believe that I am, the trigger wires actually hold the fall. I was a little concerned at first that these might wear out rather quickly. The other concern that I had was that the trigger wires seems rather exposed, especially when the device is cammed past 75%. Despite these minor concerns, Adam and I took the attitude of, "Well, they're cams. No one makes cams that just don't work at all." and we headed up to the crag. We stuck them in cracks and compared them to our other gear. They seemed simple enough. The sizes wouldn't be too hard to get used to, and the 2 lobe placement claim seemed to make sense. I took the first run at them. We were on a steep 5.10 with a crack that varies from perfect fingerlocks to knobby fists. Perfect for fall testing cams. I place the green totem about 30 feet up, backed it up and climbed until it was 3 feet below my shoes. Sure enough, cams hold, and the cam held the short whipper just fine. I climbed back to where I was and then up past into some bigger placements. I found a nice place for the red cam, backed it up, climbed above and took a good 15 foot whip on it with a nice hard catch. Once again, the cam performed brilliantly. With how easy it was to place these cams, I was beginning to think that they were a pretty good product. I finished the pitch and lowered off to give Adam a go. He wasn't nearly so kind as I was. His first piece he placed perfectly and took a small whip on, but we were here to test. Most anything works in an ideal situation, but when you take it a little more extreme, that's when you see if there is any substance. Adam placed his next piece in an ideal spot, but with only 2 lobes engaged. He tugged on it and it seemed to hold. Then he took a short fall with the piece at waist level and it ripped right out. Unscathed, Adam climbed back up and place another marginal piece. I didn't see this placement, but I know he put it in with all 4 lobes engaged. The 12 foot whip he took on that piece pulled it as well. Either Adam didn't know how to place gear, or he was purposely making bad placements. Adam finished his pitch and I decided it was my turn to give the cams a good test. I really wanted to be fair, but also test the limits of the cams. I found a perfect spot: a spot in the main crack flaring straight down at approximately 35-40% (Think about the hands on your clock at 5:35 or so). I placed the green cam and backed it up. Sure enough, that cam (that I totally expected to blow) held a 15 footer with a hard catch. My kidneys were starting to feel the hard catches now, but i wanted to test a few more. I tried the purple in a slightly more flaring placement. Not only did I pull the Totem Cam, but I pulled what I thought was a bomber backup. Quite the surprise. After all the whipping was through, We carefully inspected the cams for damage. The wires held up fine and didn't seem to ever contact the rock. We didn't load them over any horizontals or anything, but I felt like we tested them fairly hard. I'd like to see how they end up loaded over an edge, but I didn't want to ruin them. The lobes definitely showed some wear, especially on the back sides of the lobes. Very interesting spots for deformation. The aluminum seemed pretty soft, and someone that falls on their gear a lot might end up with some mashed up lobes on their cams. I'm sure the specs speak better to the softness of the metal than I can. I'm impressed, but not ready to go out and drop $80/cam on these. I normally climb on Metolius and BD and will continue to do so for now. I didn't have any major complaints though, so try them out if you get a chance. Climb safe out there. Jason Price On a scale of 1-5: Look and feel: 4 Ease of placement: 5 Holding power: 5 Durability: 3 Size: 2 Price: 1.5 and in response to "What do you rate BD cams compaired to these guys?" Price wrote: I would rate bd as "different" My go-to pieces are Metolius, followed closely by BD, but even those two are just different. Different cams work in different spots. If I had to rate BD on the same scale that I used below my review: Look and feel: 5 Ease of placement: 4.75 Holding power: 5 Durability: 4 Size: 4 Price(value): 4 Metolius: L&F: 4 Ease of placement: 4.75 Holding power: 5+ Durability: 5 Size: 4.5 Price(value): 4.5 |
|
|
|
|
boadman
Aug 26, 2010, 3:58 PM
Post #127 of 140
(6561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
Won't anybody on RC.com do a review? Mountain Project is dominating.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Aug 26, 2010, 4:33 PM
Post #128 of 140
(6546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
Sorry, brother, its too fucking hot to climb on gear right now in Vegas. I've used them once so far, but not enough to form an opinion on them.
My best guess is temps will back off toward the end of the month, so mid/late sept at the earliest for anything from me.
Bandycoot has a set and he should post up on his blog when he gets his review done.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Aug 27, 2010, 2:17 PM
Post #129 of 140
(6461 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
For those who want to get a little more geeky about cam and camming angles:
The maximum downward flaring angle for a cam is 2 x cam angle. For example, a cam with 14 degrees cam angle can theoretically hold in a downward flare up to 28 degrees. In a larger downward flaring angle, the cam lobes would walk over the rock faces as the cam lobes are forced to open. To understand this: imagine a cam with circle shaped cam lobes (no spiral lobes, just round like a wheel). This would be a 0 degrees cam angle (0 degrees logarithmic spiral is just a circle). If you perfectly fit this 0 degrees cam into a crack with parallel faces, the cam lobes would just rotate like the car wheels. In this case, it happens with 0 degrees cam in a 0 degrees downward flaring crack. Exactly the same would happen with 14 degrees cam into a 28 degrees downward flaring crack.
About holding power: the holding power (otherwise said, the minimum friction coefficient required to avoid slip) is not affected by a downward flare. In a downward flare, only the axle shear forces (and cam lobes over rock) are affected. Near the maximum downward flaring angle, the axle shear forces would be increased to the infinite. And when the maximum downward flare angle is reached the cam lobes rotate and do not work.
The Totem Cams performs better in downward flares because the cam angle is 20,35 degrees. The holding power of a Totem Cam, is like a SLCD with approximately 13 degrees cam angle.
I will show all this with drawings and mathematic demonstrations next week. This week I'm out of office.
By mapeze, mountainproject forums
A very good, but brief explanation. I was impressed and then i looked and realised the author was the totem cam designer, so of course he know all this!
(This post was edited by patto on Aug 27, 2010, 2:18 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mapeze
Sep 2, 2010, 4:50 PM
Post #130 of 140
(6331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2007
Posts: 5
|
The comment about holding power of cams in a flare is not correct at all. It's true for all regular cams but not for Totem Cams.
For Totem Cams the equivalent cam angle (we would use simply "cam angle" for regular cams) is about 13 degrees in a parallel crack, and it grows until 20.35 degrees when the flare is 40.7 degrees.
I have uploaded a paper to our web site showing some mathematics of regular cams and Totem Cams in parallel and flared cracks.
http://www.totemcams.com/...es/IndarEbazpena.pdf
(This post was edited by mapeze on Sep 2, 2010, 4:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wolfdog
Aug 1, 2011, 9:32 PM
Post #131 of 140
(5984 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2007
Posts: 33
|
You don't need to know all the mathematics to know that these cams rock in both parallel and flared placements. I used them side by side with my rack of BD's and Aliens, and they just seem to grab better and place way more easily. Very impressive, and what I plan on adding to my rack.
|
|
|
|
|
naitch
Aug 1, 2011, 11:10 PM
Post #132 of 140
(5964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 539
|
They're now $69 instead of $80 mentioned up-thread
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 4, 2011, 8:09 PM
Post #133 of 140
(5851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
boadman wrote: I just want to know the basics: 1. Are they easy to place? Are they too flexible/flexible enough? 2. Are they easy to clean? 3. Do they fit in the same spot that you know your green & yellow aliens dominate? 4. Are you actually willing to fall on them with only two lobes in? 5. Do they work well in flared cracks where we needed off-sets previously? 6. Are they really heavy?
Somewhere in there since my last post my hands started shakin' and I ran out and got 6 of them. Love them. It took some mileage to feel the love, the more I climbed on them the more I felt it. Everyone I have climbed with seems to go through this process as well. They start out looking at them with disdain, but eventually start insisting that they get put on the rack when we go out.
Range: better than a Camalot.
Holding power: about on a par as a hybrid Alien. Bette than a Camalot.
Ease of placement: great
Head Width: about as good as anything.
Ease of cleaning: better than most.
These work great in pods and horizontal seams (think Red Rocks...Jtree) and in Granite pin scars.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 5, 2011, 11:44 AM
Post #134 of 140
(5793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
billcoe_ wrote: boadman wrote: I just want to know the basics: 1. Are they easy to place? Are they too flexible/flexible enough? 2. Are they easy to clean? 3. Do they fit in the same spot that you know your green & yellow aliens dominate? 4. Are you actually willing to fall on them with only two lobes in? 5. Do they work well in flared cracks where we needed off-sets previously? 6. Are they really heavy? Somewhere in there since my last post my hands started shakin' and I ran out and got 6 of them. Love them. It took some mileage to feel the love, the more I climbed on them the more I felt it. Everyone I have climbed with seems to go through this process as well. They start out looking at them with disdain, but eventually start insisting that they get put on the rack when we go out. Range: better than a Camalot. Holding power: about on a par as a hybrid Alien. Bette than a Camalot. Ease of placement: great Head Width: about as good as anything. Ease of cleaning: better than most. These work great in pods and horizontal seams (think Red Rocks...Jtree) and in Granite pin scars.
I think it's already been said, but IMO, their biggest asset is their otherworldly flexibility. I do a lot of climbing on shallow-ish horizontals and Totems really excel in that environment.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Aug 5, 2011, 8:28 PM
Post #135 of 140
(5745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
I have the purple and really like it. For places like the Gunks, head width really makes a difference and the purple has a head width comparable to a red alien. It fits in all kinds of places its Camalot brother won't go. The flexibility is also fantastic; I've seen no walking at all.
At least in theory, Totem Cams have higher holding power than regular cams, meaning that they will hold in placements whose coefficient of friction is not adequate for an ordinary cam. The buzz from Europe already is that they are the thing for iimestone, presumably because of this.
The reason for the increased holding power is that the geometry is essentially different. The model for a regular cam is two sticks (angled down), connected with a pivot, and a stem at the pivot transmitting the load. If, instead of having the pivot at the very end of the sticks, one constructs instead a scissor configuration, and then loads the endpoints of the handles of the scissors, then a moment arm is introduced that is not present in the regular cam, with the net result (basic algebra and trig required here) of reducing the critical coefficient of friction below which the cam will slip. (This is an oversimpification of the actual Totem cam geometry, which has a logarithmic spiral on the cable loading end as well as on the rock contact end, with the result that the "stick" is not actually straight.)
The geometry also accounts for the ability to hold in higher flares. (In this regard, note that Rudmin's "argument" is fallacious; protestations to the contrary, it assumes the ordinary cam geometry when it bases its conclusion on "metal slipping at 14 degrees.")
Note, however, that the geometry does not avoid the fact that there is no upper bound on the possible pivot shear load as the flare angle approaches the log spiral cam angle. Placing cams in flares and then applying high loads may very well destroy the cam, and this is not a design flaw but rather a fact of iife.
Everyone who uses these cams, after an initial scepticism, seems to like them. It is true that they are bulkier on your rack. The cams themselves are also a little narrower than Camalots, which might be an issue in soft rock. But the biggest question mark is durability, especially for Gunks climbers who are continually placing these things in horizontals, with the consequent loading of all those wires and springs. Time will tell, I guess; for me it is too soon to offer any conclusions, and I wouldn't hold your breath, since I am very easy on my gear.
The price with postage now seems to be $70, which makes them reasonably competitive if still on the pricey side.
|
|
|
|
|
climboard
Aug 9, 2011, 7:22 PM
Post #136 of 140
(5617 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 503
|
Has anyone had a chance to check out their version of Aliens?
Totem Basic Cams
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Aug 9, 2011, 7:33 PM
Post #137 of 140
(5611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
Sick!
|
|
|
|
|
cellige
Aug 10, 2011, 4:58 AM
Post #138 of 140
(5580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2010
Posts: 14
|
Question for anyone who has a totem cam on a behavior that seems to be a bit tricky to just imagine.
If you place the totem cam, and then put some hand tension on the carabiner clipped to it, and then try to change that direction of pull a little bit, does the direct loading of the two lobes that are walking provide extra force beyond what the springs are providing to resist the walk?
Without measuring or just visually seeing them not move, the only way I can imagine to test is to stick another 4 lobed unit in the same spot, apply the same tension and try to walk and observe the exent..
Thanks !
|
|
|
|
|
JAB
Aug 10, 2011, 5:45 AM
Post #139 of 140
(5565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 373
|
climboard wrote: Has anyone had a chance to check out their version of Aliens? Totem Basic Cams
Wow! They look exactly like aliens, but hopefully without the production problems!
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Nov 5, 2011, 3:38 AM
Post #140 of 140
(5229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Great review of Totem Cams in aiding.
http://davidallfrey.blogspot.com/2011/09/totem-cams-aid-review.html
Good pics of two lobe placements too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
