|
theothervtclimber
Jul 26, 2005, 11:52 PM
Post #1 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Posts: 6
|
trango max cams...the brand new ones with a wider range...they will walk out...not just walk like standard cams or anything...they will fall out... :x
|
|
|
|
|
theothervtclimber
Jul 26, 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #2 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Posts: 6
|
hey...if any of you have trango max cams...try sticking them in a crack or a flare....then...wiggle the stem like you have rope drag...walk the cam like any other cam would...but then watch it fall out...yeah...just try it and see what i am talking about. (discovery credited to my friend at the OGE.)
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jul 27, 2005, 12:02 AM
Post #3 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
You`d best back that assertion up with a detailed explanation and or pictures buddy or I`m deleting this thread. You are making wild accusations there mate with no evidence except what little you`ve said. Need more information, ASAP. I`m giving you the benefit of the doubt for the time being, this will not last without the info being placed in this thread. To all others treat these claims with a grain of salt until evidence is provided. Thank you. Phil Box for rc.com management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Jul 27, 2005, 12:30 AM
Post #5 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
i've yet to see any problems with my max cam walking too much. i only have a #2 max cam but when placing it and playing around with it i've yet to see it walk very much. to be honest when placing my #2 max cam and #2 C4 in the exact same spot of several different placements i actually found that my C4 walked more. in both cases i found that the cams didn't walk very much and when they did they walked deeper into the crack rather then coming out. maybe you need to practice placing it more. but please do as philbox has requested and provide more detailed information as to the situations in which this happened. if you really have found a problem with the max cam i'm sure the rest of us would like to know about it.
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Jul 27, 2005, 12:38 AM
Post #6 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
In reply to: You`d best back that assertion up with a detailed explanation and or pictures buddy or I`m deleting this thread. You are making wild accusations there mate with no evidence except what little you`ve said. Need more information, ASAP. I`m giving you the benefit of the doubt for the time being, this will not last without the info being placed in this thread. To all others treat these claims with a grain of salt until evidence is provided. don't be such a tool.. since when do threads get deleted just because people make blanket statments without supporting evidence? that happens in like 1 out of every four threads i read on this site... ridiculous....
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Jul 27, 2005, 12:39 AM
Post #7 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
oh, by the way, trango nylon window decals will FALL OFF OF YOUR TRUCK AT HIGH SPEEDS!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 27, 2005, 12:43 AM
Post #9 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: don't be such a tool.. YOU'RE telling somebody else to not be a tool? Rich.
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Jul 27, 2005, 12:44 AM
Post #10 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
your biting insults destroy my self esteem
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Jul 27, 2005, 12:54 AM
Post #11 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
er, deleted, maybe i'll post something later
|
|
|
|
|
mburke225
Jul 27, 2005, 12:56 AM
Post #12 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 119
|
Axe it, I believe by this point it can be called slander without any evidence. Leaving it up only serves to possibly get the original poster sued.
|
|
|
|
|
mburke225
Jul 27, 2005, 1:01 AM
Post #13 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 119
|
AXE both of these threads.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 27, 2005, 1:02 AM
Post #14 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: Axe it, I believe by this point it can be called slander without any evidence. Leaving it up only serves to possibly get the original poster sued. Brilliant legal advice. :lol: I say leave it up. For the simple reason that numerous other equipment bashing threads have been allowed to stand. If the product is good, feedback through these threads will reflect that. If it sucks, the feedback will reflect that. That's what these forums are about. Discussing the merits of climbing gear, among other things. I'll admit, the OP is pretty lame. But I can see that they've said some things about a piece of gear, and not backed it up with any photos/data/remotely reasonable explanation. So I'm disinclined to respect that opinion. I don't need the all-knowing philbox to censor it for me. Think back to that 'aliens suck' thread. There were a couple anecdotes of alien failure, while the vast majority of posts were from people who thought they were great. The maxcam should be able to withstand the same sort of scrutiny, barely intelligible though it may be. And yes, trango decals will peel off your car if you drive to fast. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mburke225
Jul 27, 2005, 1:08 AM
Post #15 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 119
|
I was mainly referring to the fact that the OP started a second thread when his first didn't seem to catch on. Sounded to me like this person has a vendetta of some sort. And trust me, the legal advice stands. But, hell, game on. BTW Never used these myself and have been wondering about picking some up. Edited because I can't spell
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 27, 2005, 1:11 AM
Post #16 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: I was mainly referring to the fact that the OP started a second thread when his first didn't seem to catch on. Sounded to me like this person has a vendetta of some sort. And trust me, the legal advice stands. But, hell, game on. BTW Never used these myself and have been wondering about picking some up. Well, you might start by learning the difference between libel and slander. Further, RC itself might become liable if they censor some, but not all threads that defame in some manner.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 27, 2005, 1:15 AM
Post #17 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
In reply to: hey...if any of you have trango max cams...try sticking them in a crack or a flare....then...wiggle the stem like you have rope drag...walk the cam like any other cam would...but then watch it fall out...yeah...just try it and see what i am talking about. (discovery credited to my friend at the OGE.) No wonder Trango is selling them. Malcom doesn't want them anymore!
|
|
|
|
|
mburke225
Jul 27, 2005, 1:21 AM
Post #18 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 119
|
How about just the ones that defame causing monetary harm? Defamation is one thing, bring $ into it and you have a whole different animal. My arguement stands.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 27, 2005, 1:28 AM
Post #19 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: How about just the ones that defame causing monetary harm? Defamation is one thing, bring $ into it and you have a whole different animal. My arguement stands. Naturally, trango is free to pursue the OP on a defamation theory. However, that theory won't be slander. And good luck proving economic damages based on 2 posts. Luckily, Trango has addressed similar posts in the past on this site, without resorting to threats of suit. "I don't like the atc." "The atc is a piece of shit." "The atc is dangerous." "A cam fell out of a crack." Good luck going anywhere with those!
|
|
|
|
|
slacklinejoe
Jul 27, 2005, 2:08 AM
Post #20 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 1423
|
Wow, since no one else has done it yet. Might I recommend the OP please send the potentially defective cams for me to check out and do a complete and intenstive field testing. - Seriously, if your freaked out about the gear - send the love this way. I'd even pay shipping. If your willing to climb over it again, then your blowing smoke. Brainfood nutritional value: 0C (zero content post)
|
|
|
|
|
theothervtclimber
Jul 27, 2005, 2:55 AM
Post #21 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Posts: 6
|
Ok...more detail...At the upper end of the expansion range in flaring cracks where theoretically C4s or super cams (as well as any single axle design) will hold albeit marginally trango max cams have a tendency to walk in a unique way. the smaller of the two cams is so close to the axle in comparison to the larger cam that it rotates upwards and away from the direction of pull inverting and causing the placement to fail. While this only happens if the cam is jostled the cam will be jostled during periods of high rope drag....which is all the time. It is not that these cams are bad in really good parrallel placements but since their upper range is made significantly less safe (and since apparently there are legal issues with me having opinions or non documented discoveries...take this with a grain of salt) by this obvious inversion issue, there becomes the question of the total improvement over other cam designs. Are these unsafe? Probably not any more than trad climbing normally would be where unspecific circumstances create unspecific events...but would i get one now? Not after seeing what i saw. If you need more than this amount of detail, as in video, i wil get back to you when i have saved up the money to buy a camera so i can take you detailed photos which probably won't be soon cause i am broke... Seriously though, what is the point of forums if you threaten people with slander. It is called a forum....the exchange of ideas...try it out yourself....
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jul 27, 2005, 3:08 AM
Post #22 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: You`d best back that assertion up with a detailed explanation and or pictures buddy or I`m deleting this thread. You are making wild accusations there mate with no evidence except what little you`ve said. Need more information, ASAP. I`m giving you the benefit of the doubt for the time being, this will not last without the info being placed in this thread. To all others treat these claims with a grain of salt until evidence is provided. don't be such a tool.. since when do threads get deleted just because people make blanket statments without supporting evidence? that happens in like 1 out of every four threads i read on this site... ridiculous.... Because what this guy posted is slander and tortious interference with business unless he proves it. I will be happy to step up and serve his ISP with a DMCA takedown order on Malcolm's behalf unless he posts up. Comments about subjective interpretations of a person's actions or judgement may be objectionable but the legal standard for action is very, very high. The same unsubstantiated comments made about a product in wide release, used for a sport with extreme objective hazards, is a legal time bomb. Your opinions have almost no bearing on reality, as you have lately proven time and time again. Your statement -- "1 out of 4" posts on the site are spurious/slanderous/whatever -- is objectionable and disputible but it is NOT in the same league as the periodic attempts to destroy businesses that crop up on this site, nor will it (or anything like it) generate the same response.
|
|
|
|
|
micahisaac
Jul 27, 2005, 3:10 AM
Post #23 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2005
Posts: 260
|
sounds to me like feed back. Saying that a cam walks is very different than saying "it broke, and my friend died". so many things can affect walking, this is just one guys opinion. my2cents
|
|
|
|
|
krisp
Jul 27, 2005, 3:38 AM
Post #24 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2005
Posts: 233
|
In reply to: Ok...more detail...cause i am broke... Seriously though, what is the point of forums if you threaten people with slander. It is called a forum....the exchange of ideas...try it out yourself.... So guy, More detail is great. That's what people expect when you tell them the gear they're using sucks. People trust their live to this stuff, and you tell them its bunk with no explaination. That's just stupid and rude! So thanx for SOME explaination of your "ideas". And for your comment "cause i'm broke" ... figures!
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jul 27, 2005, 3:40 AM
Post #25 of 77
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: don't be such a tool.. Pot, meet kettle...
In reply to: since when do threads get deleted just because people make blanket statments without supporting evidence? Since about 1995. Oh, wait: you were asking for some sort of justification. Optional though it may be, here you go. In an ideal world, this happens as often as possible, in the event that the bullshit detector pins the needle on a post or posts; we have no legal, moral, or business obligation to provide additional coverage to a non-issue. At the very least, dropping it such sewage from the front page of the site is not only sensible but increases the ratio of useful content to bullshit for the casual visitor. On the other hand, if supporting evidence is provided (as seems to have occurred) and/or other people repeat the experiment, it generates a bunch of useful data points and increases the usefulness of the site to its audience. Rather starkly different progressions; Phil simply acted to accelerate the manifestation of a topic's direction and prod the original poster to make it either obviously useful or obviously superfluous. (Kind of hard to provide supporting evidence if the thread is whacked immediately... but no sense carrying a content-free FUD thread on the FP) I submit that we have much room for improvement, and something tells me that you are going to be hard-pressed to argue that point. Until we have a decent system in place for combining ''reputations'' from post votes, ''fairness'' from feedback, and a dash of statistical filtering to separate obvious sewage from the main stream of conversations, having someone like Phil step in and coerce a higher standard of evidence out of this type of post is a wholly positive development. (in my opinion, and I write a lot of the code that makes this jalopy run, dammit)
In reply to: that happens in like 1 out of every four threads i read on this site... ridiculous.... Ridiculous that so many posts are tripe, or ridiculous that someone would attempt to rectify the situation? Judging by the numbers (post votes and thread views, among others), most people do not enjoy reading drivel. Given the reality of the situation, I must opine that what Phil did was about the best possible action, and seems to have produced the desired outcome (information) for the greatest number of readers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|