|
loren
Nov 19, 2002, 6:27 PM
Post #1 of 33
(12512 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 31, 2002
Posts: 54
|
I've read previous threads regarding feelings about Rock Empire Cams but only heard from one person who had actually fallen on one. I've climbed on them and feel pretty comfortable with the ease of placement but am a bit concened about falling on a cam that costs as little the Rock Empires.
I'd like to hear from any one who has fallen on them and had them hold (or blow).
thanks,
L
[ This Message was edited by: loren on 2002-11-19 10:47 ]
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Nov 19, 2002, 6:34 PM
Post #2 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
Regardless of cost, they have ungone and passed the same tests that BD, DMM, Wild Country, etc cams have endured. Just becuase they are cheaper does not mean they are not as good. They were recently reviewed in Climbing mag and given a B+. I know that this doesn't answer your question but they are no less strong then Camalots.
Just to add, I do have a set myself. I have not had a chance to try them since they are only a week old.
[ This Message was edited by: vertical_reality on 2002-11-19 10:37 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lazide
Nov 19, 2002, 6:44 PM
Post #3 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 225
|
Just because they have passed the CEN or UIAA tests doesn't mean they have the same holding power or durability. One thing that concerns me about robot cams is that the lobes are signifigantly thinner in width than most other cams I have seen. (meaning less surface area, meaning less friction).
Haven't fallen on them yet, don't plan on it any time soon.
[ This Message was edited by: lazide on 2002-11-19 10:44 ]
|
|
|
|
|
loren
Nov 19, 2002, 6:52 PM
Post #4 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 31, 2002
Posts: 54
|
I noticed the same difference in the width of the lobes when comparing a robot TCUs to the comperably sized in Metolius TCU. This decreased surface area must equate to less holding power or potential.
Also, I wonder what corners they are cutting to keep prices so low. Do the use cheaper metals or aloys? Cheaper webbing?
|
|
|
|
|
lazide
Nov 19, 2002, 7:31 PM
Post #5 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 225
|
Don't know. I doubt they are any less safe than, say, a camalot, mechanically. Generally there is such competition for climbing gear (and the potential financial consequences for the company of a defective product) that quality control is top notch.
The set of robots I have SEEM to be made just fine, and I have no qualms with placing them. But like any gear they have their strengths and weaknesses, and it is a matter of judgment as to when it is best to use them. Personally I never plan on using them in soft sandstone because of the surface area thing.
You make your choices and you takes your chances. It is your life (or perhaps the life of a loved one or close friend in the example of a belay or TR anchor), so don't make choices you don't feel comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknpowda
Nov 19, 2002, 7:44 PM
Post #6 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: 418
|
Did you ever see how thin the old Black Diamond lobes were? They hold fine.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknpowda
Nov 19, 2002, 7:44 PM
Post #7 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: 418
|
Did you ever see how thin the old Black Diamond lobes were? They hold fine.
|
|
|
|
|
bigo
Nov 19, 2002, 7:47 PM
Post #8 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 237
|
I don't think less surface area necessarily means less friction or holding force. As the surface area goes down the pressure between the cam lobe and the rock increases. This increase in surface pressure should keep the frictional force about the same. On the downside though, this increase in surface pressure will tend to crumble/break softer rocks. That said the narrower cam lobes probably aren't well suited for softer rocks like sandstone but should work fine on hard rock like granite.
O
[ This Message was edited by: bigo on 2002-11-19 11:48 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lazide
Nov 19, 2002, 8:12 PM
Post #9 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 225
|
You are correct I wasn't being specific enough as to what I meant. All else being equal (including the force being exerted per sq inch against the rock by the cam faces) less surface area means less friction. What this actually means is with less surface area, more force (per inch) is exerted against the walls of the crack for an equal fall force (hence my comment about sandstone). Weaker rock will crush earlier with thinner cam lobes than thicker ones. (hence the reason for metolius fat cams)
Generally the failure mode of a cam in soft rock isn't 'spitting' out of a crack due to lack of friction, but rather 'tracking' of the cam caused by the rock pulverizing under the cam lobes (and acting like mini ball bearings).
More surface area == less likelyhood of pulverizing your placement in soft rock.
If it is granite, rock pulverization probably isn't the primary concern, but rather deformation of the cam lobes/breaking axles. Anyone have pointers to someone who has done that? Sounds damn hard to do.
Still haven't heard any response to the original question though, and I really want to know - Anyone actually taken a whipper on a robot?
edit: hehe, nm, previous response was the one I was looking for. Any more?
[ This Message was edited by: lazide on 2002-11-19 12:14 ]
|
|
|
|
|
kevlar
Nov 19, 2002, 8:25 PM
Post #10 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2002
Posts: 272
|
If cost relates to quality...i have a slightly used set of Rocks for sales at double the original cost...that should make them safer...
To answer...sorry no "whippers" but have had the med. one hold a "whimppy" fall...
My wife says i need to climb safer...an she recommends i tie a "double4 loop" around my neck with my lead rope...any comments appreciated...thks
|
|
|
|
|
blueman
Nov 19, 2002, 9:12 PM
Post #11 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2002
Posts: 19
|
I've taken falls on rock empire's cams and they've held my falls. None of the falls were total whippers however. The only thing I don't like about them is in the larger sizes. They put the cam lobes close together which allows the cams to walk easily in their placement Soooo, whenever I do bring the larger ones on a route and have to place them, I'm reeaallly careful about setting them (long sling, or weighted so the cam stays in the position I want it in).
Cheers,
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Nov 19, 2002, 9:19 PM
Post #12 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
there was a post recently by the owner of trango, who mentioned that all the cams made by Huddy Sport are less expensive because of the process used to make the lobes. i will find the link and post it.
|
|
|
|
|
quickclips
Nov 19, 2002, 10:34 PM
Post #13 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 477
|
Force of Friction=(coeficent of friction)(Normal force)
the coeficent of friction between to materials is constant, and the normal force changes with area. so it makes little difference. Until you talk about passive strength, weight, resistance to cracks and what not. I've never climbed with them, but by the look of them I'd trust them.
|
|
|
|
|
ccraig
Nov 19, 2002, 10:51 PM
Post #14 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 9
|
I'm a believer in Rock Empire Robot Cams! I took a 40 ft freefall screamer (An Oh God I'm Dead!, ride) on November 18th on Georgia Sandstone. Not only did my Rock Empire # 3 Cam hold, but it showed no signs of damage. I weigh about 160 lbs. (probabally 175 with my rack and gear). I can't think of a worse possible fall than that, and I sure hope I never take another one either.
|
|
|
|
|
josher
Nov 19, 2002, 11:20 PM
Post #15 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2002
Posts: 295
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=20108&forum=40
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Nov 20, 2002, 5:14 AM
Post #16 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
maldaly aka Malcolm Daly posted in the following thread regarding the manufacturing at Huddy Sport. While he probably would like you to go buy Trango brand cams, I bet he wouldn't be upset about you supporting Huddy by purchasing Robots, Acme, Ocun or whatever they're going by now. Check out this thread
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=17133&forum=40&start=15
Look for his post on the 2nd page near the bottom.
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
runner
Nov 20, 2002, 7:27 PM
Post #17 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 31
|
just wanted to comment on that stuff about price vs quality in cams.
someone mentioned that because something is cheap doesn't make it low quality. i believe (especially with outdoor gear production and retail)that just because something is expensive doesn't mean that it's high quality. all price really means is that the product is marked way up from production cost. there are reasons that the outdoor industry sells cheaper in europe than here in the u.s. one reason is price discrimination. the oligopoly of gear producers recognize that americans are willing to pay a certain price and europeans another, so they sell at those respective prices in those respectives locations. it's the same as movie tickets. matinee is cheaper than nightime.
we can rest assured that the process of making a camalot is just about the same (and costs about the same) as making a robot cam.
i'm fairly confident that most of the spray companies put out about their quality vs others' is nothing more than agressive advertising, and that price (which is all too often equated with quality) is nothing more than a pretty fat profit margin.
|
|
|
|
|
wlderdude
Nov 21, 2002, 2:37 AM
Post #18 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 1123
|
I am not disagreeing with the concept that we Americans are willing to pay more, therefore we do.
However, the designs of American cams require more costly manufacturing processes. So, yes, a Metolius, BD or CCH cam does cost more than a Robot cam to produce.
Metolius cams lobes have to be CNC machined on two sides out of aluminum plate. the body has to be TIG welded and silver brazed. The trigger bar has to machined.
Robot cams start with extrussions so machining opperations are minimal. Material waste is going to be much samller when you are not having to machine the cams out of a plate, so they can afford a more expensive alloy than most cams use. They use lots of common mechanical fasteners so they don't have to custom manufacture lots of specialized pieces and no welding is necissary. They use simple injection molded plastic trigger bars.
They figured out how to make a more cost effective cam. That doesn't mean Robot cams are not any less safe.
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Nov 21, 2002, 2:47 AM
Post #19 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
right on.
i'm buying robot cams next spring, unless trango cams go on sale and i can at least support the american distributor. not only do appreciate keeping the price down, but i think it takes as much ingenuity to make something less expensively. i don't think we can continue comparing BD cams to robots because they have two separate markets.
|
|
|
|
|
topher
Nov 21, 2002, 4:51 AM
Post #20 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 477
|
I duno if any one watched malcom in the middle on sunday, but if you did this post reminds me of the end of that show. Hale is trying to give stuff away and every one is like whats wrong with it, is it safe, as soon as he starts charging for it people are like wow this is good stuff.
YES these cams are safe!!! the only diffrence is the price. they have all the same certifications and what not as a BD or DMM. so stop questioning a good product and just be glade that there cheap. And like all trade gear, the actual gear quality is the last thing one should be worring about, the placment and rock is whats going to blow way before the pice ever breaks or fails.
|
|
|
|
|
arsenalcrater
Nov 21, 2002, 5:33 AM
Post #21 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 147
|
What about Wired Bliss cams? They are tight and bomber and a pretty good deal. Also, they are made by the owner operator of linkupgear.com I'm sure Gene would love to hear from you all and he might even have some blems for cheap/cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Nov 21, 2002, 5:35 AM
Post #22 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
a quote by runner
Quote:we can rest assured that the process of making a camalot is just about the same (and costs about the same) as making a robot cam.
uhhh... have you ever compared a camalot to a robot? Dual axles? Smoother action? Duh!
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Nov 21, 2002, 6:29 AM
Post #23 of 33
(12511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
I fell.
Thanks to orangekyak for posting that link to Malcolm Daly. Some interesting history.
One of the things mentioned in the link was the original cam company name Kouba. I have five Kouba's and think they are great. Now as falling on trad generally makes me poop my britches, I try very hard not to do it. MANY times I have slammed one of those Kouba's and sat on it with nary a problem. Countless anchors have incorporated Kouba's and I don't have to question them. My Kouba's are rated to 13-15kN but do not carry either CE or UIAA certification to that fact. Now this fact may seem to make them a pretty scary choice but let me tell you why I chose them besides the price ($175CDN for all five). Back in '96 when I was learning to walk on the darker side, I was leading a local 5.8 on limestone with a hefty roof. I had borrowed a Czech buddy's cams and placed one under the roof. I had it backed up with a bomber hex because this thing was from the Czech Republic and well used over the previous dozen or so years.
I pulled the roof and just as I got my feet up above the roof, my right hand greased off a side pull....down I went. I never questioned that cam as I fell, rather where I would swing in below the roof. When I stopped, I was an estimated 8ft below the cam having fallen about 12ft. I checked the cam placement and it still seemed good. Soon after that I ordered a set of Kouba's and although I have supplemented them with other cams, they still hang on my rack when I climb.
But you asked about the Rock Empire cams?
Well as you would have read in the above link, the Kouba's were the predecessors of the Rock Empires and the Robots. If cams a dozen years old, are OK then newer, more refined cams will be (a)better or (b)worse?
Ya know what, that's your call.
|
|
|
|
|
sanarteaga
Jul 7, 2009, 5:25 AM
Post #24 of 33
(10105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2008
Posts: 64
|
I own a complete durango set (before flex cam by trango...).
I climb near bogota, Colombia, south america, in rather soft sandstone.
I have fallen less than 10 times on the durangos. Out of those probably 8 where on the blue number 3 (size = red camalot). The f%%ing blue one has ripped out twice (so thats more or less 1/3 of the times). I have been saved both times by the orange numer 4 (size = yellow camalot). And it held both times like a champ, once the fall was a 8 meter factor 1! (i ended up at my belayers' height, but unharmed) I think the first time the blue ripped out because the piece was to small for the placement (now I always crank this guys at 80%). The second time I think it was the rock quality (sanstone...) but i couldnt tell if the pebbles that i felt falling were from the first placement (which blew) or the second one (which held me).
Besides leader falls, I have used them to build anchors, top ropes, and also "rested"on them while leading.
This said, this is what I have to say:
1. Great price.
2. Quality is ok. They are deteriorating, but nothing serious. I guess you can expect a life more or less 3/4 of a camalot.
3. DO NOT TRUST THEM AT RANGES SMALLER THAN 80%. BUT THEY ARE BOMBER AT 80% PLUS RANGES. They are suppose to work 50% up, but at less than 75% they are only psychological pieces to me. Since their range is rather limited, and sizes do not overlap much, they are simply not as versatile as C4s.
4. Stability: The small ones behave better. The big ones need stronger springs (they feel too soft and this could translate into "walking"). Simply use long draws to keep from disloging them...
5. I also own C4 camalots and they are better in every aspect except for: price and weight.
6. I you have no cams, go for RE. They will allow you to start trad climbing. Once get more into hard trads, and you start falling more on the pieces... maybe you will also like to save for some C4s...
Botton line:
CHEAP, RELIABLE BUT WITH A LIMITED RANGE, DECENT QUALITY, GREAT TO START YOUR SLCD RACK!
|
|
|
|
|
ggemmen
Jul 10, 2009, 1:45 AM
Post #25 of 33
(9971 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2006
Posts: 34
|
yes. never big falls (< 10' total in each case), but i have fallen on RE Robots a few times. most of the time it was on J-Tree (or J-Tree esque) rock and it's great friction, but the longest fall on the REs actually was at Mission Gorge in San Diego. If you know Mission Gorge, you know it's some of the greasiest rock you can find. it held fine.
that said, i got C4s and TCUs as my primary cams as soon as i could afford them. the REs, however, are my doubles and i have no qualms about placing them, especially from the maroon 0.75 up to the red 4. bigger than that they "seem" wobbly, but as other posters have pointed out, they pass the same tests as all the others. climb safe 
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
