|
esallen
Mar 6, 2005, 8:28 PM
Post #1 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Posts: 304
|
I recently purchased several large SLCDs: #4.5 and #5 Camalots (NOT the new C4 model) and a Metolius Powercam #10. I did forum and gear-review searches regarding big Camalots and it seems like a lot of people don’t like them because the are heavy and somewhat unstable. Although I haven’t had them for long, they have seemed to work great for me; they don't seem exremely heavy or wobbly! Is there anyone else out there who enjoys their big Camalots as apposed to large Friends or BigBros, or is hatred for big Camalots universal among climbers? Oh, and what do y’all think about the Metolius #10?
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
csgambill
Mar 6, 2005, 9:00 PM
Post #2 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2004
Posts: 607
|
I agree with you esallen, they don't seem too heavy. I guess everyone else must be kind of weak. My camalots have always been stable enough for me. At the moment I use only camalots to protect larger features. They work great.
|
|
|
|
|
estwing
Mar 6, 2005, 9:04 PM
Post #3 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 344
|
My experience with a number 4 camalot has been pleasant. No problems with it, I scored a good deal on a number 5 friend that had been used once when I was in J-tree. It is a little bigger than the #4, and a bit wider, I don't see too much difference though, perhaps the springs are a bit stiffer.
|
|
|
|
|
alexc
Mar 6, 2005, 9:21 PM
Post #5 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 15
|
I have and use both old style Camalots and Friends.
Friends are nice because they are lighter and the #6 is slightly bigger than the #5 Camalot (the new #6 is a bit bigger than the old #5 isn't it, so this may not be an issue anymore?). In some cases that extra half inch of size makes all the difference! The Friends are also wider and so more stable than the Camalots. This isn't usually an issue, but I do like the wider Friends.
The nice thing with the Camalots is that the cams can't get rotated out of position like they can on single axle cams (i.e. one set of lobes rotates relative to the other side), This makes placing them a little easier, but if you are careful this isn't a big problem. The Camalots are also a bit less likely to get tangled up while on the rack because the lobes stay aligned.
In terms of Friend sizing, it would be nice to have a smaller #5 and a bigger #5 so that there are two to cover the range between #4 and #6. The gap between #4 and #5 is quite big, however a #4 Camalot fills the gap very nicely. I've seen many climbs where the gear is given as Friends plus a #4 Camalot. The gap between the #5 and #6 isn't so bad.
If I were buying large cams again, I'd get #5 and #6 Friends plus some #4 Camalots. Maybe get a #4.5 Camalot too for the odd time it would be useful.
I'd have to take a look at the new Camalots too, but I've been happy with Friends so far so I don't see a strong reason to switch.
I have BigBros too, but very seldom use them.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Mar 6, 2005, 10:46 PM
Post #6 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
i would bet that the new #5 C4 fills the gap between the #5 & #6 nicely.
the new C4 #6 is a bit bigger than the old #5, but still a bit smaller than the WC #6...i've used both, i dont really have a preference. the weight is a non-issue for me.
i own and use bros on the climbs that allow for them...they're much lighter and for their size, they're incredibly low profile, which is nice if the pitch you are using them on is #10! :)
|
|
|
|
|
esallen
Mar 7, 2005, 3:51 AM
Post #7 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Posts: 304
|
What do you guys think of the Metolius Powercam #10?
|
|
|
|
|
fledgling
Mar 7, 2005, 5:09 AM
Post #8 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 25
|
The Metolius #10 is a sweet cam I just placed one a couple days ago. Very similar in Size to the BD #4 (old style). I actually like it better. Stiffer springs and easier to place. The BD's larger range is nice though. You don't want to get to the top of a climb with one of these unused on your rack cause it didn't fit. You might as well of carried a six pack up with you.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Mar 7, 2005, 5:40 PM
Post #9 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: It is a little bigger than the #4, and a bit wider, I don't see too much difference though, perhaps the springs are a bit stiffer.
Wider wheel base on the bigger cams is a huge advantage, especially as you move above the old size #4 Camalot into the range of Wagon wheels. The wider the wheelbase, the more stable the placement.
In spite of what the rabid wombat csgambill says, weight is also a huge issue. Perhaps not when you're only carrying one or two #4.5 and #5 Camalots, but when you're carrying doubles and triples of each up to a #12 Valley Giant, the ounces add up.
When I climbed Twilight Zone, back before my dotage, my wide rack weighed about 45 pounds. And that was just the pieces wider than the #4 Camalot. The rack for the first pitch, all the smaller pieces, #4 and under, weighed only 35 pounds.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Mar 7, 2005, 7:25 PM
Post #10 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
May I never, ever, ever, climb Twilight Zone! :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Mar 7, 2005, 8:54 PM
Post #11 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
I used a #3 Camalot yesterday... took a fall on it, too. (My first fall on gear that I'd placed.) It held nicely, which made me a pretty happy camper, as you can imagine. I've no problems with larger gear when it's needed. Ya gotta use what ya gotta use.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Mar 7, 2005, 9:04 PM
Post #12 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
In reply to: In reply to: It is a little bigger than the #4, and a bit wider, I don't see too much difference though, perhaps the springs are a bit stiffer. Wider wheel base on the bigger cams is a huge advantage, especially as you move above the old size #4 Camalot into the range of Wagon wheels. The wider the wheelbase, the more stable the placement. In spite of what the rabid wombat csgambill says, weight is also a huge issue. Perhaps not when you're only carrying one or two #4.5 and #5 Camalots, but when you're carrying doubles and triples of each up to a #12 Valley Giant, the ounces add up. When I climbed Twilight Zone, back before my dotage, my wide rack weighed about 45 pounds. And that was just the pieces wider than the #4 Camalot. The rack for the first pitch, all the smaller pieces, #4 and under, weighed only 35 pounds. Brutus |
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Mar 7, 2005, 9:06 PM
Post #13 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
In reply to: I used a #3 Camalot yesterday... took a fall on it, too. (My first fall on gear that I'd placed.) It held nicely, which made me a pretty happy camper, as you can imagine. I've no problems with larger gear when it's needed. Ya gotta use what ya gotta use.
I used to think a # 3 was large too..until i went to the valley for the first time and realized "ahh yes, there is a reson for these monster cams!"
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Mar 7, 2005, 9:33 PM
Post #14 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
In reply to: i would bet that the new #5 C4 fills the gap between the #5 & #6 nicely.
Unfortunately, no.
The new #5 C4 and #6 C4 are almost identical to the #5 and #6 friends. And it is a pretty big gap (in my opinion). This sucks, but its the way it is.
The new #5 C4 is about 0.5"" bigger than the #5 friend.
The new #4 C4 does fit nicely between the #4 and #5 friend and it does so at much less weight than the old #4.
As to the original question, its not that the large Camalots are too heavy or too unstable. But rather, since the large friends are both lighter and more stable than the Camalots, I think the Friends are a better choice.
|
|
|
|
|
esallen
Mar 8, 2005, 3:20 AM
Post #15 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Posts: 304
|
How do the prices compare (Big Camalots vs Big Friends/ BigBros)?
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Mar 8, 2005, 3:55 AM
Post #16 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
in general, Tech Friends are quite a bit cheaper, except the biggest one...well, its cheaper, but only by $0.50!
big bros that cover the range at and above the big cams are $80 each, except the monster one, which is $110, the same price as the two monster cams. of course, the monster bro will protect an 18" wide crack.....
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Mar 27, 2005, 12:26 AM
Post #17 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
Wider and lighter is better, if looking to make a new purchase, go with the big wild country cams.
On the other hand, most of the time this distinction is moot. If you already have green BD's don't replace them, unless you do a lot of this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Mar 27, 2005, 12:31 AM
Post #18 of 18
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Now that camalots are lighter, I might end up climbing offwidths more often. Whenever I take the #4 camalot, I wind up using it, often climbing a larger crack than necessary just because I want to place the damned thing. I figure if I don't take offwidth gear, I won't climb offwidths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
