I have't used the Max and Link Cams, so I really don't want to comment on them, except to say that the Max Cam has three axles, :wink: not two.

plus i have heard a lot of bad things about them failing because of so many movements in them.

I don't know much about the Super cam. I've seen them, and frankly I don't like them. I don't like the way they handle, and I don't think they are that big of an improvement . . .

I just called Omega and Trango this morning,

The Release date on the Omega Link Cam is:
Two weeks from now (roughly)

The Release date on the Trango Max Cam is:
The first week in August.

I got to play with the Link, Max, and Super at the OR show, but I didn't get to place them, so during the next two weeks when the Link cam is released I'm sure the forum will be flooded with feedback. I ordered both sizes for my rack as well to try out so I'll let you guys know how they are.

On the Link:
I've also heard speculation that the steel lobes (the inner ones) won't have as much bite as the standard aluminum and could pull out easier, but no one will know until they try.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Kenny

-you can start placing orders on the Link and Max and get them the first day they come out.
http://www.TradRack.com

I ordered 3 Maxcams from Mountain Gear last month, with the original shipping date of 6/1/05. That date came and went, so I called and they are expecting shipment on 7/15/05 and said they would ship mine out the following business day. YMMV

I've seen statements like this by you several times now. Have you had one in your hand when you talk about how they handle? And can you qualify your statement as to exactly why you don't think Super Cams are that big of an improvement (and over what)?

I would be more worried about the supercam aligning.

Does anyone know when the super cam release date is? Is it out?

Can't wait to set the link cam in two weeks just to see how it really is.

When I was playing with the super cam at the OR show I thought it was a terrible design having both lobs go on one side. How is that supposed to hold me in a fall, two lobes on one side and useless stem on the other side of the crack. It seems like one side of the crack would have plenty of contact and the other side would have practically none (Tri cams?). Comments on this? I think the design is revolutionary, but I feel the most uncomfortable with this new radical design on the super cam (until I actually place it), even more uncomfortable than the link cam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
-Kenny

The cam physics make perfect sense to me after taking the statics class last semester, I think the only thing I need clarified is:

When the super cam is 100% cammed, aren't both lobs on the same side?
If that is true then what is going on with the other side? Are there any teeth or is it just the cam stem pushed against the wall?

When the super cam is 100% cammed, aren't both lobs on the same side?

I vote Max. Got to play with a prototype way back in '03 and it looked great then. Actually, it almost took a fall, but the leader had placed a #2 Camalot just above it, which caught him instead.

The Super Cam, when fully retracted, still has a small cam lobe on the "stem side." The lobe that rotates all the way around to the other side is just the larger half of this lobe. Tough to explain, but rest assured Reno that it's not just the stem pressing against the crack--there's still camming action going on.

Gang,
Be very, very careful of using the cam angle as a major determining factor for chosing a cam brand. Just as important is the choice of material for the cam lobes and the tooth profile. What matters is how well the cam works and I think that just about everything availble now works pretty well. The oldest still available cam, the Lowe/CAMP Tricam has varying cam angles: they start at 13 degrees and proceed up to 17 degrees out at the tips of the cam. Damn things work pretty well, too.

Our cam angles vary slightly but are well within the ranges discussed above. Anything more than that gets into trade secrets

I personally think voting will have to wait until folks can hold, and get out and climb on, all three side-by-side in order to make a reasonable comparison and vote with their dollars. Making pronouncements / judgments before that amounts to premature speculation.

As for the Super Cam design - it couldn't be more traditional or closer to the original Jardine Friend design - not in appearance, but rather in how it works: two sets of opposing cams producing a consistent camming angle to the rock - 13.5 degrees in this case exactly like the Power Cam. Appearances aside, the Super Cam works exactly like a Power Cam or an original Jardine Friend.

I'm not so sure about this.

If the stem is not centered between the lobe contact points, the force in the direction of the stem cannot be equal at each contact point. It must be larger on the side with the smaller lobes. It looks like this is exacerbated even more when the lobes are fully retracted, which also happens to be when the lobe radius (and therefore contact surface) is the smallest.

Still strong enough? Probably, but it definitely performs differently than a standard symmetric lobed cam.

~Adam~

I don't see how one set of lobes could exert more (or less) force than the other due to the offset stem. Whatever force one set of lobes exerts must be equal and opposite to the force the other set of lobes exerts. Right? :?: :?:

.... maybe you can just get a large range in virtually a unchanged cam, the C4.

No, you don't have to "relearn" how to place it. You don't have to "get used" to virtual axles. Ya don't have to worry about the "steel inner lobes".

Nope, you pretty much use it just like before except it weighs less...

Huh - that was easy.

.... maybe you can just get a large range in virtually a unchanged cam, the C4.

No, you don't have to "relearn" how to place it. You don't have to "get used" to virtual axles. Ya don't have to worry about the "steel inner lobes".

Nope, you pretty much use it just like before except it weighs less...

Huh - that was easy.

I'm not so sure about this.

If the stem is not centered between the lobe contact points, the force in the direction of the stem cannot be equal at each contact point. It must be larger on the side with the smaller lobes. It looks like this is exacerbated even more when the lobes are fully retracted, which also happens to be when the lobe radius (and therefore contact surface) is the smallest.

Still strong enough? Probably, but it definitely performs differently than a standard symmetric lobed cam.

~Adam~

No mention of the new "shark's fin" teeth on the Super Cam? Supposedly they keep the teeth from getting "lubed up" on grit from the rock when a piece is weighted.

The force exerted on the rock is basically the same on both small and largge opposing cams by virtue of the matched 13.5 degree camming angles and the fact that they share a single axle - the distance from the axle to the rock is irrelavent.

We're talking about two different forces here.

Assuming a static situation, the net force and moment in the system must be zero.

Now let's set up our coordinate system. Assume the X-axis is the axle of the cam. Assume the Y-axis is the stem of the cam.

For the net force in the X direction to be zero, you're right, both lobes must exert the same outward force.

For the net force in the Y direction to be zero, the situation is a bit different. In one direction, you have pull on the stem, and in the other direction, you have friction forces on each of the lobes pulling in the opposite direction.

Because of the nature of the asymmetric lobes, the stem will always be nearer to one side of the crack than the other. How "centered" it is depends on how retracted the lobes are. In every case, though, the smaller lobe will be forced to bear more of the load on the cam.

Take for example a placement in a 3" wide crack. Let's assume the stem is offset 1" from one wall (therefore 2" from the other wall) of the crack. Now let's pull down on the stem with 9 lb of force (in the Y direction). The force of friction (Y direction) against the larger lobe will be 3lbf and the force against the smaller lobe 6lbf.

I'm also going to disagree with your physics, Adam.


Agreed.


Exactly. And here's the thing: because the angles of the forces on the left and the right are equal (as healyje pointed out), the ratios of the vertical and horizontal components must be the same for both forces. Because the horizontal components are the same (as you just pointed out), the vertical components must also be the same.


I agree with all but the last sentence. You give no physical justification for this.


Again, what principle of physics are you basing this on? Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean or anything. I'm just pointing out where exactly the flaw in your logic is.

I just drew up a force diagram myself, and I'm 100% certain that the forces on the two sides of the crack are equal. To summarize:

The fact that the system is in horizontal equilibrium requires that the horizontal components of the two forces be the same. If the camming angle is the same on both sides, then this requires that the vertical components of the forces (which are equal to the friction forces from the left and right sides of the crack) must also be equal.



You might be thinking that the friction forces cause a moment (a torque) on the cam lobes, and maybe that's what you're basing your argument on. But moments are pretty much irrelevant here. Let's consider the right cam lobe. The friction force (pulling upward on this lobe) seems to exert a moment about the cam's axle, but the normal force (the wall of the crack pushing the lobe directly to the left) exerts an equal moment, canceling out the first. The easiest way to see this is to just consider the cam lobe as a straight beam, in compression, going from the cam's axle to the right wall of the crack. Since it's a beam in compression, the force it exerts on the wall of the crack must go exactly in the direction of the beam (namely, to the right, and 13.5 degrees down.) Since the whole system is in equilibrium, the *net* force exerted by the wall of the crack on the beam (the sum of the friction force and the normal force) must be equal to this, but in the opposite direction. So really the only two forces acting on the point of contact between the beam and the rock are exactly in the direction of the beam, and therefore do not induce a moment about the cam axle. Basically, as far as I can tell, there are no moments that are really relevant in this situation.

Will

Ah, I see the point of disagreement here.

Moments are definitely relevant here.

Now the kicker...
Are your cam lobes contacting the walls of the crack (assumed parallel) exactly opposite (normal to) each other? Or is one lobe contacting the crack lower (placed vertically) than the opposite lobe? In which orientation does this cam tend to sit when you place it?

I hate to come down so hard on the Super Cams, but I have to say that from what I've read and heard, I'm not that impressed. If you can get the same range with a product that's lighter, more ergonomic (in my opinion) and has been around for 20 years, then why choose the Super Cams?
Just my two cents.

Really? So the Super Cam doens't save any weight or range expansion? What product are you comparing it to?

Thus, if the lobes are of different sizes, then they must necessarily contact the rock at different heights.