|
sspssp
May 31, 2006, 10:42 PM
Post #1 of 8
(4116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
Ok, when the Omega Link cams first came out, I was curious, but not convinced (heavy to carry--complicated mechanics). It seemed to me the best use might be to save at least one link cam for the anchor (which would give you the best chance, with only one cam, of having the cam go somewhere), or to put a link cam on each daisy for quick easy aid.
However, one of the magazine reviews (back when they came out), mentioned that the "stem" of the link cam got fat as the outer lobes were retracted for placing in the smaller sizes. A fat stem sounded problematic for the irregular Sierra granite I usually climb, so I thought I would wait and see how popular they are with other climbers.
They have been out for a while, now. What are people's experience?
Are they a worthwhile addition for a Yosemite C1/C2 aid rack? Or just stick with the Aliens and Camalots?
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
May 31, 2006, 11:37 PM
Post #2 of 8
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
quick, easy, aid? what? you mean like free climbing?
jam that bad boy.
|
|
|
|
|
fenderfour
Jun 1, 2006, 2:33 PM
Post #3 of 8
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 177
|
You seem to be asking a few questions here.
1. Link cams are about hand sized. There's no reason to crack jug with them, as you probably have plenty of pieces in that size to protect a handcrack normally while freeclimbing. Crack jugging is usually only done when you need to bring really big gear to protect the climb and it is cost/weight/bulk prohibitive to do so.
2. I've been using the orange link cam for about two months now. To clarify - the stem doesn't get fat, the cam lobes fold away from the major camming surfaces. With the trigger pulled tight and the camming surfaces as small as possible, the floppy lobes will not impede placement of the cam.
We've started calling the link cam the "sport" cam. Some of the sport routes we've been on lately require 1-2 pieces of trad gear, and we almost always take the link cam. It's sure to fit.
Keeping the link cam in reserve for the anchor would be good. As you said, it does fit a larger range of cracks than the other available options.
I like the link cam and it would be a nice addition to an aid rack. It does require more cleaning and oiling than a typical cam with all of the high-tolerance joints.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 1, 2006, 4:20 PM
Post #4 of 8
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
It's also great for 1 - blind placements; 2 - very highly textured cracks.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Jun 1, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #5 of 8
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
In reply to: Crack jugging is usually only done when you need to bring really big gear to protect the climb and it is cost/weight/bulk prohibitive to do so. the floppy lobes will not impede placement of the cam.
Wrong.
"Crack jugging" is generally done in small size's. Leap frogging or pushing a cam along is more common in larger size's.
Anything in the way can and will impede placement of a cam.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Jun 1, 2006, 5:30 PM
Post #6 of 8
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
In reply to: 1. Link cams are about hand sized. There's no reason to crack jug with them, as you probably have plenty of pieces in that size to protect a handcrack normally while freeclimbing. 2. I've been using the orange link cam for about two months now. To clarify - the stem doesn't get fat, the cam lobes fold away from the major camming surfaces. With the trigger pulled tight and the camming surfaces as small as possible, the floppy lobes will not impede placement of the cam.
Well, the mgear catalog shows the smaller of the two link cams getting almost as small as a #.5 camalot. That's certainly not anything that I could hand jam (and I'm not bad ass enough to be able to free climb any "hand size" crack regardless of flare or steepness, anyway).
I realize the stem itself doesn't change size. However, when the lobes are retracted, they don't dissappear. For an irregular crack (such as many Yosemite aid routes), I could well believe that the retracted lobes could get in the way of getting the unit far enough into the crack to get a good placement. This is what I believe the magazine was referring to. But I'll take it that you haven't had this problem. Anybody else?
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
fenderfour
Jun 1, 2006, 6:13 PM
Post #7 of 8
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 177
|
In reply to: "Crack jugging" is generally done in small size's. Leap frogging or pushing a cam along is more common in larger size's. Anything in the way can and will impede placement of a cam. josh
Then I guess I just don't know what "crack jugging" is. I've always seen it as pushing a large cam ahed of a climber in an offwidth, almost using it like an ascender at times, gripping the rock instead of the rope. Hence the term "jugging"
BTW - have you tried using the link cams yet? The floppy bits do not make it anymore difficult to place.
|
|
|
|
|
ptpp
Nov 2, 2007, 6:05 AM
Post #8 of 8
(3203 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Posts: 38
|
I've tried Kate's Link Cams on a few walls, and they are pretty cool. The camming range is amazing, which makes them quite superb for crack jugging.
Remember when Friends came out, and you could crack jug up the Stovelegs? Then Camalots came out, and we switched to those for crack jugging because the double axle gives them a greater expansion range, and you are less likely to have to switch cams when crack jugging.
Well, the Link Cams go that one step further, so you can really haul ass on the C1 crack jugging.
I have some concerns about the robustness of the design, however. One of the wires pulled out of the plastic thing on us. They are also pretty pricey. I had a couple in my hands in Toronto a few months ago, but put 'em back cuz they're just so damn expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
