|
ericfrommichigan
Nov 6, 2003, 2:44 PM
Post #26 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2003
Posts: 62
|
In reply to: I would argue that a steel cable is stronger over and edge than a sling because it is more resistant to abrasion and shearing...lots of horizontals cracks in the Gunks have pretty sharp edges.
I would agree here that Cable is stronger and less likely to get sawed by the edges, but if you properly place a forged friend with the "Gunks Tie-Off" being placed where it should be, not running over the edge, but hanging straight down from the rigid shaft as close in to the edge as appropriate, this will not be a concern. If the "Gunks Tie-Off" is running from inside the crack over the edge and down, then you most likely should be using the supplied sling or a "Tie-Off" mid-way up the stem, and not the tie-off that would cause the edge drag condition..
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Nov 6, 2003, 5:18 PM
Post #27 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: In reply to: And why is that exactly? because that’s what i've been told; is that good enough for you! plus if you look at it in a physics way. if you place the inner cams down you have less distance between the cams then if the outer cams are placed down: agree? Ok, so here is a little experiment for you. take 2 music cd covers (or books whatever you have) place them 1 inch apart and place another on top lying across the 2. do the same thing but place them 3 inches apart. which one is more stable??????? which one will wobble around easier???? maybe someone else can help out here and provide info for or against.
Music CD covers are not part of a semi-rigid, spring loaded protection system. Walking of cams is far better dealt with by using sufficient runner length.
Far more important than cam orientation vs. walking is the specific individual details of your protection system, the nature of the rock, and shape of the placement. If the placement dictates wide cams up. place the cam so. If the placement dictates wide cams down, place it so. A similar argument raged a few years back regarding stinger orientation for tricams.
As usual, It Depends.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Nov 16, 2003, 6:10 PM
Post #28 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
I'd like to reinforce petsfed's comment. When outfitted with tie-off loops, rigid stem Friends are superior to all flexible stem cams in horizontal cracks and are the pro of choice for horizontal cam placements. Not only is the holding power significantly greater than what you can expect form flexible stem cams in horizontal or vertical cracks, the durability of the piece is far greater.
In order to realize the superiority of tied-off rigid stems, the cam must be placed so that the tie-off sling hangs flush with the cliff face. Experience in the Gunks indicates that this is possible in almost all placements, the main problem being not shallow placements but rather placements that are too deep.
The reason rigid stems, placed with the tie-off loop flush, are so markedly superior in horizontal placements is that only a small fraction of the downward force resolves into an outward (cam extracting) component, whereas a flexible stem converts almost all the downward force into an extracting force.
Of course, placing a rigid-stem cam in a shallow horizontal crack and clipping the end of the stem will result in the stem breaking in a moderate fall. I've seen one such breakage in an eight-foot fall with 40-50 feet of rope out.
|
|
|
|
|
andypro
Nov 16, 2003, 8:24 PM
Post #29 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1077
|
Whoops. Nevermind. Was too slow on the draw and about 5 posts staked up regarding my quesiton. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
jeffvoigt
Nov 24, 2003, 6:52 AM
Post #30 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 13, 2003
Posts: 82
|
Yes you want to place the cam so that the outside lobes are down. This generally gives the cam a more stable base, resulting in less walking. if in doubt lenthen the sling a little or add a second piece close to the first.
http://www.climbingjunky.com
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Nov 24, 2003, 7:51 AM
Post #31 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: gbschmitt wrote: "With a little ingenuity and a lot of balls (and duct tape), one can protect anything." Ingenuity and duct tape maybe, balls are not at all necesary for climbing. Trillium
Funny how gender biases the way we read things. You read that and note (quite correctly) that you don't need balls to climb.
I read it, cringe, and think how balls and duct tape should almost never, ever be used together.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Nov 24, 2003, 7:51 AM
Post #32 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: gbschmitt wrote: "With a little ingenuity and a lot of balls (and duct tape), one can protect anything." Ingenuity and duct tape maybe, balls are not at all necesary for climbing. Trillium
Funny how gender biases the way we read things. You read that and note (quite correctly) that you don't need balls to climb.
I read it, cringe, and think how balls and duct tape should almost never, ever be used together.
|
|
|
|
|
phyreman
Nov 24, 2003, 2:00 PM
Post #33 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 93
|
Almost!?
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 24, 2003, 2:31 PM
Post #34 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: I'd like to reinforce petsfed's comment. When outfitted with tie-off loops, rigid stem Friends are superior to all flexible stem cams in horizontal cracks and are the pro of choice for horizontal cam placements. Not only is the holding power significantly greater than what you can expect form flexible stem cams in horizontal or vertical cracks, the durability of the piece is far greater.
The biggest problem, IMHO, with tying off a rigid Friend is the limitation of single aspect placement.
To make sure we're talking about the same thing, a "Gunks Tie-off" refers to using a lengthof cord, slipping it through the stem near the cam lobes, and tying a knot -- Double or Triple Fisherman's (Fisherperson's??) -- then placing the cam in a horizontal crack... are we on the same page here??
If so, then you can only place the cam such that the cord is BELOW the wires from the trigger to the cam lobes (i.e. wider lobes DOWN only, or wider lobes UP only.) Doing otherwise runs the risk of having the cord compress the cam wires during a fall, and causing the whole piece to fail.
Personally, I don't like to limit my gear in such a fashion... I prefer to be able to put the wider lobes in whatever position they work best (and, FYI, I do NOT agree with "piton" posting of wide lobes down always... this is B.S.) Hence, I'll use a Flex-stem cam, or more likely, a Tri-Cam.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Nov 24, 2003, 9:36 PM
Post #35 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
In reply to: (and, FYI, I do NOT agree with "piton" posting of wide lobes down always... this is B.S.)
you got me! just exactly why i wanted to post here to B.S. everyone :roll:
i thought i agreed with gunkiemike that if the outer lobe placement is better up than place it that way. if it doesn't matter then place the outer lobes down. take it with a grain of salt "reno"
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Nov 25, 2003, 7:31 PM
Post #36 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Reno is right about the Gunks tie-off determining cam orientation in horizontal cracks. I happen to rig mine so the wide cams are placed down, but I doubt that there is any significant difference. After 25+ years of stuffing cams into horizontal placements, I have never found cam orientation to be a serious issue. In any case, what little difference orientation might make is overwhelmed by the higher holding power and increased durability of tied off rigid stems in horizontal cracks. In other words, the tied-off rigid stem placement is going to be stronger than the flexible stem placement no matter which way the flexible stem's cams are oriented.
By the way, rigid stems work fine in vertical cracks too. Flexible stems are a little more versatile and require a little less thought to place, but their advantages are, in my opinion, way oversold.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Nov 25, 2003, 8:42 PM
Post #37 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
As a recovering math/physics person who climbs, I'd like to attempt (doomed to fail) to put the "outside cam lobes down is more stable", argument to rest from a PHSYCAL view.
OK, so now think about your cam stuck in a horizontal crack. The springs in the cam are pusing against the lobes which are pushing against the top and bottom of the crack. Two lobes push up, two push down. The cam axel is rigid, right? to displace the cam, all lobes must change position. Since all lobes (assuming you did place the cam properly, with the lobes extended symatrically) are pushing out with equal force, and since all lobes must change position for the cam to move, it makes no difference if the outer lobes are up or down.
What does matter, as several people have pointed out, is a good fit. The same sort of argument works for tri-cams.
Why some people thiink the outside lobes shoudl be down might be because we are used to thinking about gravity holding stuff in place, and a wider base is better in that case. But notice, it a horisontal crack, gravity is not doing much, rather the springs in the cam are pushing the lobes up and down with equal (in magnitude) force, and there is an equal and opposite normal force pushing back against the lobes from the top and bottom of the crack (otherwise the cam would be digging into the rock or the rock would be crushing the cam)
|
|
|
|
|
squish
Nov 27, 2003, 5:32 AM
Post #38 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 470
|
In reply to: Yes you want to place the cam so that the outside lobes are down. This generally gives the cam a more stable base, resulting in less walking.
This is patently false. Cams aren't wobbly chairs, CD cases or houses of cards or what have you. They are not going to fall over in a horizontal crack.
Cams are held in place by spring tension on the cams, and whether the wide end is on the top or bottom makes far less difference to the placement than any other consideration.
If anything, the outer lobes are the ones doing the majority of the walking. The inner lobes serve as a pivot.
|
|
|
|
|
fng
Nov 27, 2003, 6:15 AM
Post #39 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 85
|
I'M FAIRLY NEW TO TRAD CLIMBING AND TRY TO LEARN FROM EVERYONE I CLIMB WITH. I WAS SHOWN BY ONE GUY I CLIMBED WITH THAT IN HORIZONTAL CRACKS YOU COULD USE TWO NUTS, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF YOU AS FAR APART AS YOU COULD SAFELY PLACE, AND RIG THEM SO THEY WOULD PULL AGAINST EACH OTHER MORE THAN DOWN SO THAT IN THEORY IT WAS LIKE USING TWO NUTS IN A VERTICAL CRACK. I HAVE USED THIS BEFORE AND IT FELT SOLID AND SAFE. ANYONE HAVE ANY OPINION.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 27, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #40 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
FNG:
You're talking about placing nuts in opposition. This technique, like all others, has advantages and disadvantages. It may be useful, but many times it might be easier to just place a cam or a tri-cam as has been discussed throughout this thread.
Oh, and a friendly suggestiopn? Don't use all capital letters when typing to a forum board such as this. It's the cyber-equivalent of shouting, and is considered rude. I'm sure you didn't intend this, so no hard feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
adamtd
Nov 27, 2003, 7:24 PM
Post #41 of 41
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 187
|
read "Climbing Anchors" by John Long, or "Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hills"
|
|
|
|
|
|
