|
|
|
|
psprings
May 17, 2007, 6:28 PM
Post #1 of 27
(1886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Trying to see how this works posting an MS Excel attachment; first time with this sort of attachment thing. I'm not sure if people will have to download it from my computer or what, so I guess I'll find out [it's on a work computer :O].
I had some time, so I figured I lay out the average size of different types of pro to see where stuff overlaps [ie, large nuts overlapping with tcus overlapping with small tricams; hexes overlapping with cams].
This mostly came about b/c I recognized that I use the small tricams all the time, but almost never my large nuts [9,10] due to the overlap and what I prefer placing between the two [and I'm working on a superlight alpine rack].
Anyway, if this is helpful to you, great. If not, don't worry about it :D
Peace,
Peter
ps- If you just want to compare cams from different companies, this is not the chart for you. I think there's one called Clyde's Cams that is a great resource. Google it!
(This post was edited by psprings on Aug 1, 2007, 6:53 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
climbing pro sizes.xls
(60.0 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
Dillbag
May 17, 2007, 6:46 PM
Post #2 of 27
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Posts: 93
|
Nice!
Just out of curiousity... What is the "Arbitrary Size" mean? Is it in mm...?
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 17, 2007, 6:51 PM
Post #3 of 27
(1858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Yeah, it's in mms.
Basically I just compiled all of the sizes of pieces of gear, then seperated them into differing sizes. I then created the "arbitrary" size column to give a base line in sizing [I was trying to simulate a ruler :D] to compare everything: nuts, tricams, hexes, and cams, without following any one company's or type of pro's sizing chart :D
I should probably change the title of that column to "base-line sizing".
PS
(This post was edited by psprings on May 17, 2007, 6:56 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
May 17, 2007, 7:00 PM
Post #4 of 27
(1835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
I use Magnum size protection.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 17, 2007, 7:03 PM
Post #5 of 27
(1829 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
I thought you were going to say "forged" protection.
PS
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
May 17, 2007, 7:07 PM
Post #6 of 27
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
i applaud your diligence; however the work has already been done.
check out http://spadout.com
they have a graphical rack simulator.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 17, 2007, 7:39 PM
Post #7 of 27
(1783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Yeah, I like the rack simulator that they have, but it doesn't really give a side by side comparison [unless I'm using it wrong, which is possible] in the graph mode that shows the actual range.
The other problem I have with graphs in general is that they show min to max and it's hard to see any details on it, especially comparing different types of pro... and cams don't protect at max. That's why I went with the averages between the min and max.
Anywho, I'll play around with Spadout a bit more; and thanks for that link!
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
May 17, 2007, 8:34 PM
Post #8 of 27
(1735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
Nice job, man, but can I make a couple of suggestions? When I was first putting together my rack I did much the same thing, but I organized the data into a "Floating Bars" graph (open Chart Wizard, click Custom Types tab, and select Floating bars). It takes more work and a little bit of arithmetic, but what you end up getting is a bar graph that visually shows where each piece overlaps other pieces. If I can find my old spreadsheet I'll post it here so you can see what I mean.
I get your point about using the average between the min and max, but you're cutting out a lot of useful range there. Yeah, pro isn't good at the min and the max, but smack dab in the middle isn't the only acceptable spot. By using only the midpoints, you might have two pieces that don't appear to overlap, but in reality they do.
But anyway, thanks for the hard work!!
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
May 17, 2007, 9:02 PM
Post #9 of 27
(1709 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
psprings wrote: they show min to max and it's hard to see any details on it, especially comparing different types of pro... and cams don't protect at max. That's why I went with the averages between the min and max.
details are much better expressed in averages...
WTF are you thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 17, 2007, 9:41 PM
Post #10 of 27
(1683 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Hey
Dr- yeah, that does sound like a good option; I'll have to play around with excel a bit more. Agreed on the issue of cams covering a larger range that is still useful.
Fulton- Not quite sure what your point is. My point is to show what pieces are grouped into a size catagory: that's the point of the "base line" size. Basically, by using the mid size for the piece, you can use that as an identifier to get rid of other pieces... i.e. if I'm carrying a pink tricam and a #3 tcu, I might not want to carry a #10 nut too. It's just a quick reference point to compare pieces, that's all.
Personally, I think it's a little quicker to look at than a bunch of graphs, because it's sort of laid out in a graph style format. I made if mostly for deciding on a super bare-bones rack; quick to decide what is being redundant for a size, or 3x redundant, or whatever, and you have a quick weight comparison too.
And fyi, I think that graphical chart sucks on Spadout after looking at it again, unless I'm doing something wrong. Their other breakdown of weights and stuff is great, but the comparison feature doesn't work for me.
Just thought this might be a useful "at a glance" tool for some of you all if you're looking at eliminating weight or extra pieces from your rack.
|
|
|
|
|
markanite
May 18, 2007, 5:54 AM
Post #11 of 27
(1625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 282
|
Can you be more specific about what's not working? I would be glad to fix (I am the Spadout guy).
Thanks,
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 18, 2007, 5:59 AM
Post #12 of 27
(1617 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
NICE! ask... and you shall receive.
post up your issues with spadout rack simulator here, folks. the developement and beta-testing on version 2.0 is about to begin!
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 18, 2007, 2:19 PM
Post #13 of 27
(1590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
He he,
My main complaint is the graphic chart.
1. The 'bars' are so close together that everything is difficult to see.
2. You can't tell what any of the specific pieces are that are covering a given range- we need labels!
Again, not hateful of the simulator: I've used it and really like it, but it lacks on the comparison of types and sizes of gear on a rack IMO. I'd LOVE to see an updated graph feature! Maybe PM Dr about what he did?
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 18, 2007, 2:48 PM
Post #14 of 27
(1572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
psprings wrote: Anyway, if this is helpful to you, great. If not, don't worry about it
Nicely done.
In reply to: ps- If you just want to compare cams from different companies, this is not the chart for you.
There's a similar thing in the back of "Castles in the Sand" guidebook by David Bloom.
|
|
|
|
|
begood77
May 18, 2007, 2:50 PM
Post #15 of 27
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 65
|
Also being able to see a chart of passive pro and active pro would be helpful. Right now I believe you can only look at one or the other. I guess nuts only have two size placements, but tricams have a range and it would be nice to see how they can fit with cams.
JC
Also to compare cams:
http://www.needlesports.com/...iends___Cams_24.html
(This post was edited by begood77 on May 18, 2007, 2:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 18, 2007, 3:09 PM
Post #17 of 27
(1558 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Excellent Tradgirl resource! Haven't seen that one before! If only they had a merged active and passive chart!
PS
Thanks for all the useful links, guys. This is turning out to be a great thread for finding different comparison charts!
|
|
|
|
|
winglessangel
May 18, 2007, 3:37 PM
Post #18 of 27
(1536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 459
|
These charts are great, but they are out-dated
BD no longer has 3.5 or 4.5
DMM recently (couple years) canged their cams too.
Anyway the idea is good and easy to do with MS excel. But for comparing the active range of cams I wouldn't use tha max size but maybe .9 times it.
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
May 18, 2007, 6:12 PM
Post #19 of 27
(1497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
psprings wrote: Excellent Tradgirl resource! Haven't seen that one before! If only they had a merged active and passive chart! PS Thanks for all the useful links, guys. This is turning out to be a great thread for finding different comparison charts!
Yeah that tradgirl graph is nice! psprings, that's pretty much the same thing I had made in Excel.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 18, 2007, 8:40 PM
Post #20 of 27
(1458 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Hey,
I can't agree with Wingless more about the cam max range being put on the chart [unless you're one of those people that likes placing tipped out cams!]. But as far as the 3.5 and 4.5 go, I think they just call them a 4 and a 6 now... should still be the same range.
Thanks guys,
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
markanite
May 18, 2007, 8:47 PM
Post #21 of 27
(1456 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 282
|
stymingersfink: haha, thanks man. let me know what you have in mind.
psprings wrote: He he, My main complaint is the graphic chart. 1. The 'bars' are so close together that everything is difficult to see. 2. You can't tell what any of the specific pieces are that are covering a given range- we need labels! Again, not hateful of the simulator: I've used it and really like it, but it lacks on the comparison of types and sizes of gear on a rack IMO. I'd LOVE to see an updated graph feature! Maybe PM Dr about what he did? Peter
No hate taken. I am fully aware that if you are not getting negative feedback on RC.com nobody cares! Regarding point 2: just click on any of part of the graph and it will tell you what protects this bar.
I 100% agree that the racksimulator could take another wack. it is ridiculously popular (~30,000 users per month) so I really should give it another update.
Feel free to send me PMs with opinions etc. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
May 19, 2007, 1:13 AM
Post #23 of 27
(1415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
winglessangel wrote: These charts are great, but they are out-dated BD no longer has 3.5 or 4.5 DMM recently (couple years) canged their cams too. Anyway the idea is good and easy to do with MS excel. But for comparing the active range of cams I wouldn't use tha max size but maybe .9 times it.
Yeah, I knew a lot of it was outdated, but thought there was enough in there to help psprings with some data. He's doing a great job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Aug 1, 2007, 6:51 PM
Post #25 of 27
(1077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Hey all,
Just wanted to let you know that I've updated that Excel file to include a "usable range" tab worksheet. The usable range is +10% of the min and -10% of the max of cams only. Not complete yet, but enough to get started for those of us using the major brands out there.
Still working on getting it to graph form, but since I'm inept with Excel, it may take a while.
Peter
edit: to clarify that is only +-10% of cam range, not passive.
(This post was edited by psprings on Aug 1, 2007, 7:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
