|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 3, 2009, 7:48 PM
Post #51 of 170
(10308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
boymeetsrock wrote: ...they have a responsibility to see that it can be trusted...
boymeetsrock wrote: ...when used correctly...
boymeetsrock wrote: ...and that correct usage be defined for the user.
Note: I agree, shit does happen - that's part and parcel with the game. And when bad things happen to people that's when I do see a place for community.
|
|
|
|
|
bigo
Aug 3, 2009, 8:21 PM
Post #52 of 170
(10287 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 237
|
healyje wrote: There is no linkage design or material currently available at the same weight that wouldn't be 'fragile' - maybe in 5, 10, 20 years with significant advances in material science - but I'd say OP is producing a state-of-the-art product for 2009. It just has limitations which should be obvious the second you look at the image of one or at the very least the moment one is in your hand.
Do you know that for sure? What is the material, form, alloy and heat treat? Maybe you want to amend that to "available at the same weight and cost". The failed links look like they could be castings. If that is true, one could get better material properties out of a forging or machined piece at a higher cost.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Aug 3, 2009, 8:56 PM
Post #53 of 170
(10264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
To Dingus,
I am actually somewhat surprised that you are so vehement about your position. I generally see you stand on the personal responsibility soapbox. I think this may run counter to your usual opinion, but I may be misreading this.
To Omega Pacific,
Thanks for the response. The community loves an honest, open company. Though I agree with JT that the word "ideal" is a little strong, I personally appreciate the general honesty with which you approached this issue. I am very interested to see what comes of your two proposed action plans. Keep us updated.
To everyone else,
I am ambivalent here. I don't think either side is wrong. I think in this case OP has some responsibility to make very public what makes this particular design different, including the good and bad. That may be as simple as changing the instructions booklet, or following Petzl and Trango's footsteps with instructional videos.
OP does not, however, have a responsibility to make its gear invincible. These are specialty pieces, and they should be treated as such. To make them more general-use may make them less useful overall.
We are now fairly certain about a limitation previously theoretical. It is up to OP to make that information available, and up to us to use that information wisely.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 3, 2009, 8:59 PM
Post #54 of 170
(10259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
shoo wrote: To Dingus, I am actually somewhat surprised that you are so vehement about your position.
HAHAHAHA
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Aug 3, 2009, 9:01 PM
Post #55 of 170
(10255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
jt512 wrote: shoo wrote: To Dingus, I am actually somewhat surprised that you are so vehement about your position. HAHAHAHA Jay
Perhaps a reword is in order. I meant this particular position, not positions in general.
|
|
|
|
|
rock_ranger
Aug 3, 2009, 9:03 PM
Post #56 of 170
(10250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 189
|
suprasoup wrote: Appreciate the replies Mike, it's good to see OP stepping up and addressing these issues. For my part I think the Link Cams are a fantastic design and a well executed product. Own doubles of all four sizes and haven't had a problem with any of them. http://mountainproject.com/v/suprasoup/106506444 It seems to me a lot of the hating comes from the Oldies and Newbies. The Oldies, set in their ways, crying that it's not a C4, doesn't do what a C4 does, yada yada. Frankly I'm glad it's not a C4. If I wanted a C4 I'd buy a C4. The Newbies need to learn how to place gear properly. Practice Practice Practice. Learn the pros and cons of each piece of your rack and you'll be doing yourself and the climbing community a favor. Trad is not for the mindless. If you want mindless stick to Sport. ( NO offense, only in reference to protection  ) In regards to the #3, if ya make it I'm buying it, 2 of em. 
Glad to see someone has some sense and isn’t on the hating bandwagon. Hell, I bet 80% of the people who diss OP Link Cams don’t own one and have never even used one :).
I have 4 complete sets of Link Cams and only use them on my rack…see ya C4’s. Last April in Indian Creek everyone was dogging them. Too expensive, too heavy, too many parts…
Then slowly they would start to use 1 or 2 on a route. By the end of the week I was constantly asked by people if they could use all the Link Cams I had..lol. And most of the people using them had been climbing for over 20 years. Some of them you’ve seen in mags or heard of…
I've taken numerous falls on mine, hell I've even broke two .5's so far. One at the Creek, a cable wire came off. And one I left on a route so another person could do a route clipping my gear (they were new to trad). I think they stepped on it and pushed it in too far. The crack had a recessed pocket deep inside and the cam umbrellaed. I made the person go back up and get it and they broke it. But both instances were user error NOT OP’s.
I'd more than happy to sell or trade all of my C4's (3 complete sets) for Link Cams any day.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 3, 2009, 9:07 PM
Post #57 of 170
(10236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
shoo wrote: To Dingus, I am actually somewhat surprised that you are so vehement about your position. I generally see you stand on the personal responsibility soapbox. I think this may run counter to your usual opinion, but I may be misreading this.
"Personal responsibilty' is meaningless in this context.
You are misreading it. Get on an airplane and tell me about personal responsibility.
You have a choice - get on the plane, or don't. Unless you are an airplane mechanic and have worked on and signed off on that plane's integrity to fly... you have no clue. Literally. Get on or don't - END of personal responsibility. yet you have to make that decision COMPLETELY UNINFORMED.
Well, not quite conpletely. The safety record is well established and the accident investigation is second to none.
But any 6th grader should be able to look at a Commuter jet and know that shouldn't fly one into an ice storm? That's the nut of joe's argument and its horse shit. You take your choice and you roll your dice, same as the woman in the seat across the aisle. You want to fly? You have no other choice.
Similarly, unless you are a mechanical engineer you are also taking someone else's word about the integrity of a link cam. You have a choice - place the cam or don't. Your personal responsibility stops there.... unless you're enrolled in an engineering school that is.
This whole thing about 'just looking at the piece' and 'self-evident' is ludicrous.
Damnit, you pulled be back in! AERRRGGGGHHHHH!
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Aug 3, 2009, 9:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Aug 3, 2009, 9:09 PM
Post #58 of 170
(10228 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Any cam from a major manufacturer will work in optimal,straight down placements.What differentiates cams is how well they work in sub-optimal placements,which apparently,Link Cams don't.I find it amusing how so many people fall for the slick PR OP puts forth,while always blaming the user.All CCH needs is a similar spokesperson,with a polished presentation.
I have no idea what experienced climbers see in these.They are way heavier,way more expensive,and way more finicky.I can see why beginners,who do not yet have the knack of planning their pitch,would find them useful....maybe.
Talking about the need to analyse when you can use them seems ridiculous to me.You get to the end of the pitch,all you have is your Link Cam,but it's a bottoming straight out placement.What are you going to do?
Wish you had a C4?
I'd agree it's not rocket science to see the limitations.I've yet to see any real advantages,except,as I said,for Noobs.And crack Jumaring.Why would you carry heavier,more expensive gear that doesn't work as well?
Edit to add: The guy upstream has broken two....lol...in one tenth the time Aliens have been around,Link Cams are soon to surpass them for failures in use....I mean....uh....bad placements.....
They are great in test jigs though.
(This post was edited by tomcat on Aug 3, 2009, 9:13 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 3, 2009, 9:10 PM
Post #59 of 170
(10224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
dingus wrote: Damnit, you pulled be back in! AERRRGGGGHHHHH!
Just when you thought you were out?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 3, 2009, 9:10 PM
Post #60 of 170
(10222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
suprasoup wrote: majid_sabet wrote: you do not need to be an engineer to figure this out but anytime you have a mechanical device that has too many moving parts, connections, attachments and linkages, and this device is going to be used for climbing and with potential of falling, then you are asking for trouble. Maybe we should all just go back to using passive pro only then eh?
well
when was the last time you saw nut in half ?
Not saying that active pros are unsafe but taking one size fit all sort of a protection does come with its own problems such as failure due to weakness of the casting, moving parts with multiple joint under stress .
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 3, 2009, 9:10 PM
Post #61 of 170
(10222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
In reply to: boymeetsrock wrote: ...when used correctly... Well, here's the rub, when it comes to placing gear in rocks and particularly in marginal placements, the phrase " when used correctly" really loses all meaning. I'd amend that to say: " when used wisely in light of its advantages and limitations".
OK. I understand your point and I agree. All parameters cannot be defined. However, known limitations can be defined. I would have to go back to product tags which are not available to me at the moment, but I am guessing that the literature attached to new 'biners says not to place them over an edge.
In other words the advantages and limitations, as commonly understood, should be expressed to the end user. Link cams certainly tout their advantages (as is true for all climbing gear). They can also advise of know limitations. This way a leader has the opportunity to use the product wisely in light of its advantages and limitations.
In reply to: boymeetsrock wrote: ...and that correct usage be defined for the user. Here again is the notion that someone else has some responsibility for a climber's understanding, behavior, or how the gear gets used on lead. This is likely a generational or, given olde Dingus' comments, maybe a regional deal - but my abiding belief is no one but you is responsible once you leave the ground; any other way of thinking is just frought with danger. Note: I agree, shit does happen - that's part and parcel with the game. And when bad things happen to people that's when I do see a place for community.
OK. I can agree with this too. See my above comment for caveat though.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 3, 2009, 9:11 PM
Post #62 of 170
(10219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
tomcat wrote: Any cam from a major manufacturer will work in optimal,straight down placements.
Is this self-evident too?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 3, 2009, 9:12 PM
Post #63 of 170
(10216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: dingus wrote: Damnit, you pulled be back in! AERRRGGGGHHHHH! Just when you thought you were out? Jay
Killing me softly with his song
killing me softly
with his words
telling my whole life
with his song.....
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Aug 3, 2009, 9:21 PM
Post #64 of 170
(10197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
healyje wrote: This is likely a generational or, given olde Dingus' comments, maybe a regional deal - but my abiding belief is no one but you is responsible once you leave the ground; any other way of thinking is just frought with danger.
BTW, I think you are reading Dingus and I a bit wrong here. I don't think either of us are saying that anyone other than us is responsible for our actions, or the result there of. What I believe he and I are saying is that we should be provided with sufficient information to make knowledgeable decisions. At lease in the case of "safety equipment" manufactured for that purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Aug 3, 2009, 9:40 PM
Post #65 of 170
(10169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
That's pretty much what I said in the post re: the potential problem with MasterCams in horizontal placements (which may well be no problem at all--unfortunately it was sort of left off with no clear answer, except that if there is a problem, it's subtle).
I was criticized as being a coddled, overly-needy baby who probably should not be trad climbing (maybe that's true!). Some people think that problems (or "issues," as they may say) with Link cams are obvious, and that everyone should become some sort of gear tester and form his/her own beliefs about what cams can be put in what types of placements. That sounds pretty unrealistic to me, but maybe I'm just a coddled, overly-needy . . .
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 3, 2009, 9:42 PM
Post #66 of 170
(10167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
boymeetsrock wrote: healyje wrote: This is likely a generational or, given olde Dingus' comments, maybe a regional deal - but my abiding belief is no one but you is responsible once you leave the ground; any other way of thinking is just frought with danger. BTW, I think you are reading Dingus and I a bit wrong here. I don't think either of us are saying that anyone other than us is responsible for our actions, or the result there of. What I believe he and I are saying is that we should be provided with sufficient information to make knowledgeable decisions. At lease in the case of "safety equipment" manufactured for that purpose.
No its all self-evident. You should be able to look and just tell, 6th grade education sufficient.
And ASKING the mfg to inform you is not acceptable. This is an unreasonable expectation and you are being irresponsible for holding it.
Its ridiculous.
The level of personal responsibility for cam usage is... do you clip it to the rack (yes or now) and then do you place it (yes or no) do you trust it (yes or not) and finally are you willing to risk it on a questionable placement (yes or no).
END of personal responsibility.
I have run it OUT over questionable placements, like any other experienced trad climber.
Deciding to unclip the Link Cam from my rack IS exercising the first step in cam personal responsibility.
All the engineering wanking is irrelevant. It comes down to a roll of the dice and "a sense" trust in the mfg.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Aug 3, 2009, 9:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 3, 2009, 9:57 PM
Post #67 of 170
(10157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
dingus wrote: No its all self-evident.
OK - so how many folks here looked at the cam lobe linkages on Link Cams and said:
A) "Sweet! Those little axle tabs look so frigging burly they'll never break!"
B) "Hmmm, a bit sketch on the little axle tabs, wonder how easily those might break?"
C) "Dude! They have linkages? No shit! Hell, it had a trigger I could pull (smooth as silk) so I never even noticed that - wtf!"
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Aug 3, 2009, 10:06 PM
Post #68 of 170
(10151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I think dingus might be off base with the two month thing, it wasn't stated exactly when OP got the cam, just that it was in June. The cam was broken in June.
Is a month reasonable? 22 working days? To get the facts, outsource to a metallurgist, analyze what happened, write a report and explain what happened to the boss?
I'd just add that I like the links a lot, and the more I use them the more I like them. Calling them noob gear is pretty ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Aug 3, 2009, 10:16 PM
Post #69 of 170
(10141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
majid_sabet wrote: suprasoup wrote: majid_sabet wrote: you do not need to be an engineer to figure this out but anytime you have a mechanical device that has too many moving parts, connections, attachments and linkages, and this device is going to be used for climbing and with potential of falling, then you are asking for trouble. Maybe we should all just go back to using passive pro only then eh? well when was the last time you saw nut in half ? .
Didn't Wild Country do that with their superlight rocks? Cut them in half?  Just kidding Majid_Sabet.
Pros and Cons to any piece of equipment. It's up to the consumer/user to sort through all the relevant information and make an informed decision based on his/her needs. If new information appears, weakness or strength, then that goes into the decision making process. No ones holding a gun to your head and telling you what you should put on your rack. If you don't believe them safe then don't use them. Find something else.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Aug 3, 2009, 11:04 PM
Post #70 of 170
(10102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Arguing that Omega Pacific shouldn't be selling cams than can break is like arguing that rope manufacturers shouldn't selling ropes that can cut. Or carabiner manufacturers shouldn't be selling biners that break when loaded over edges.
Allowing a Link cam to be loaded sideways on its non active lobes is akin to allowing a rope to be loaded across a razor sharp piece of rock.
We have gotten used to really burly cams. Since the death of the rigid stem modern cams have become near impossible to break (cept aliens ). OP have introduced a radical new design that has amazing range. Inherent in the design is a fragility when loaded totally incorrectly. This is a design limitation and you the user needs to use this piece with its limitations in mind just as you should use a rope with its limitations in mind.
Its funny reading here about people who believe that climbers should have any understanding about the physics or engineering in climbing. People who believe that should NOT be trad climbing. In order place good protection, in particular small passive pro one needs to have a solid grasp of material properties. In order to set up a decent anchor one needs to have good understanding of geometry. In order to keep your rope from being cut over sharp edges one needs to be able to calculate the path of the rope and the fall. To be able to perform rescues you need to know all sorts of stuff about weights angles and mechanical advantage.
Not everyone has the type of intelligence for climbing. Be aware of you own limitations and climb accodingly. I have friends that prefer sport climbs and never climb with beginners that might need to be rescued. They do this because they know they don't have the right type of intelligence for GOOD trad climbing.
tomcat wrote: Talking about the need to analyse when you can use them seems ridiculous to me.You get to the end of the pitch,all you have is your Link Cam,but it's a bottoming straight out placement.What are you going to do?
I don't know but climbing is about working such shit out yourself. If you are in an unsafe situation then sometimes backing off is a good idea. If you can't place a Link cam safely then don't. You probably couldn't place a nut there either but you don't seem to be blaming the nuts. Link cams wont fail if you use them correctly.
pfwein wrote: That's pretty much what I said in the post re: the potential problem with MasterCams in horizontal placements (which may well be no problem at all--unfortunately it was sort of left off with no clear answer, except that if there is a problem, it's subtle).
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Aug 3, 2009, 11:25 PM
Post #71 of 170
(10089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Sorry,but you're dead wrong there Patto.All ropes cut over roughly the same edges,and we learn to mitigate that issue or deal with it,ditto biners.Link Cams fail spectacularly where other commonly used gear works.There is no comparison.
(This post was edited by tomcat on Aug 3, 2009, 11:26 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 3, 2009, 11:40 PM
Post #72 of 170
(10079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
tomcat wrote: Any cam from a major manufacturer will work in optimal,straight down placements.What differentiates cams is how well they work in sub-optimal placements,which apparently,Link Cams don't.I find it amusing how so many people fall for the slick PR OP puts forth,while always blaming the user.All CCH needs is a similar spokesperson,with a polished presentation.
Ever notice how everyone else puts a little space between the punctuation mark and the next letter?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Aug 4, 2009, 12:03 AM
Post #73 of 170
(10067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
tomcat wrote: Sorry,but you're dead wrong there Patto.All ropes cut over roughly the same edges,and we learn to mitigate that issue or deal with it,ditto biners.Link Cams fail spectacularly where other commonly used gear works.There is no comparison.
I don't know if you can say they fail spectacularly. They have certain limitations a normal cam does not. They also have certain advantages a normal cam does not. Individual climbers can evaluate for themselves what kind of trade offs they want to make, advantages and limitations. You can learn to mitigate the limitations and deal with them and reap the advantages, or not.
Normal cams also break when used inappropriately. The one that comes to mind first was the small trango cam that basically exploded when overcammed in an Indian Creek splitter. fully overcamming is a failure mode I wasn't aware of until that incident.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 4, 2009, 12:17 AM
Post #74 of 170
(10058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
suprasoup wrote: majid_sabet wrote: suprasoup wrote: majid_sabet wrote: you do not need to be an engineer to figure this out but anytime you have a mechanical device that has too many moving parts, connections, attachments and linkages, and this device is going to be used for climbing and with potential of falling, then you are asking for trouble. Maybe we should all just go back to using passive pro only then eh? well when was the last time you saw nut in half ? . Didn't Wild Country do that with their superlight rocks? Cut them in half? Just kidding Majid_Sabet. Pros and Cons to any piece of equipment. It's up to the consumer/user to sort through all the relevant information and make an informed decision based on his/her needs. If new information appears, weakness or strength, then that goes into the decision making process. No ones holding a gun to your head and telling you what you should put on your rack. If you don't believe them safe then don't use them. Find something else.
so the new climber shows to the local climbing store and says; hi, i am getting in to trad and want to get a cam on the budget that fit few sizes and the hippie dirtbag salesman says, ohh we got this. they seems to be doing ok.
now, do you think the buyer and or the salesperson who sells the product knows all the pros and cons or the R&D person in mfg who knows exactly what rivet pops out during FF1 or whatever ?
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Aug 4, 2009, 1:04 AM
Post #75 of 170
(10038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
Quick question for you, if you don't mind answering:
Are lobes on link cams casted or CNC machined ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
