|
rymep
Jun 13, 2007, 12:56 AM
Post #26 of 36
(1296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 73
|
i've had the two sizes for about a month now. Haven't placed them on a climb yet, but I've used both on nearly every anchor/belay I've set up, it makes things go so much quicker. I've been considering another one just because it makes setting a belay up so much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
fenderfour
Jun 15, 2007, 3:19 PM
Post #27 of 36
(1224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 177
|
I've been using the yellow Link cam for more than a year now. It's a great thrutch piece. When I'm getting pumped, I usually reach for the Link cam. It's terrific for anchors and crack jugging (i'm an aid climber too). last weekend I took a 20 footer on to the steel lobe section. It was a bomber placement in granite. All was good. I think it is a good backup/double piece for a rack, but shouldn't be your primary cam. Get a set of BD's and two yellow Link cams to double most of your rack. The smaller Link cams don't add much range to the set.
|
|
|
|
|
phile
Jun 15, 2007, 4:49 PM
Post #28 of 36
(1210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 114
|
a couple of people have mentioned their benefits for belay anchors. why is that? wouldn't the quick-n-easy placement be more useful while climbing? just asking.
|
|
|
|
|
rymep
Jun 15, 2007, 11:56 PM
Post #29 of 36
(1175 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 73
|
phile wrote: a couple of people have mentioned their benefits for belay anchors. why is that? wouldn't the quick-n-easy placement be more useful while climbing? just asking. While the quick-n-easy is useful, it seems more useful to me as an anchor piece because it covers so much, you don't have to rely on what pieces you have left. If you're like me and don't have much gear, I use most on the climb and don't have to rely on the sizes I have left to build the anchor. What I'm saying is I can build the anchor using what the rock gives me, rather than finding something that my remaining pieces fit. I don't have to compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Jun 22, 2007, 5:11 AM
Post #30 of 36
(1067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
In reply to the original post, I have place links in sandstone splitters at the Red River Gorge. Granted the sandstone there is a little more dense than in the dessert, but I believe it was comparable. I use the links only as a crux or pinch piece. The placements were solid, I even placed shallow enough that the lobes were exposed and had no issues. I would like to know how the lobes would fair if a fall would bend them on the edge of the crack, for example a diagonal placement. For those placements I normally use tricams (which are the most versatile pieces on my rack, buy them). I don't feel that loading your whole rack with them would be a good idea, due to many concerns such as weight. Two or three is a good investment for the previous mentioned reasons. I would also appreciate one size larger, it would allow for a little more diversity, but any larger then that and the piece is going to weigh a lot, as opposed to carrying the same weight in Metolius or C4's, and larger size placements are normally covered easier by big cams anyway, the expansion range on the larger WC friends and C4's I find is more than enough. Malday maybe you should look into the trigger action of the Metolius SuperCam, it has some innovation that might help alleviate the long trigger problems.
|
|
|
|
|
crackmd
Jun 24, 2007, 8:00 PM
Post #31 of 36
(970 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 444
|
Climbed at Indian Creek earlier this month and got my original question answered for myself. Truth is, these cams are extremely useful on desert splitters. So much so, I plan on buying more. Anyone who has experience climbing desert splitters knows all too well the "gaps" between successive cam sizes which the manufacturers would never tell you about. For example, there is a certain crack size where #1 Camelots are tight to the point of risking getting stuck and the 0.75 Camelots are tipped out to where it's hard to trust it. This is only a concern on a sustained parallel splitter since a crack with any variation in size would be more amenable to finding the correct placement. I only use Camelots as an example since the same thing occurs with successive Friend sizes. One way that I have found to overcome this is to mix and match brands of cams. For example, the #2 Friend fits perfectly in the size where the 0.75 Camelot is tipped and the #1 Camelot is tight. Swearing allegiance to any single brand of cam is counterproductive on desert splitters, IMHO. The subtleties in size are no longer an issue with the link cam since it fits a large range of sizes well. I found myself saving the one link cam that I currently own for crux sequences and difficult placements. It seemed like the smaller size the crack and more cammed the link cam was, the more bomber the placement became since it goes in deeper when cammed to smaller sizes. It really became my "ace in the hole" which I would try not to place too early. Potential problems with these units are their size and weight. Carrying a rack of 15 of these units may be cumbersome compared to the lighter C4s and Friends. Also, the fine desert sand seemed to have an affinity for the many joints of the cam although this did not seem to affect the triggerring. It was always easy to trigger and place. Overall, I feel these are valuable additions to a desert climber's rack. They have also worked well for me in granite and basalt cracks. The weight may be an issue and hopefully future versions of the link cam will change this. Not time to sell off all the Friends and Camelots yet.
|
|
|
|
|
112
Jun 24, 2007, 9:40 PM
Post #32 of 36
(944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
maldaly wrote: When Greg and I were working on the Link Cam in the '80's we weren't smart enough to figure out a way to trigger a big size that wouldn't result in a trigger draw length that was longer than your hand. Any ideas out there? Pulley re-direct on the trigger back down to the axle (where the springs are). 2:1 trigger movement versus cable 'extension'. Make some kind of collar in the middle of the spring to anchor the cables. There would prolly be clearance issues with bent cables though.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Jun 24, 2007, 10:24 PM
Post #33 of 36
(920 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
flint and 112, Good thoughts on that trigger but you have to pull the link to make it operate correctly. Think of trying to push a chain--it will collapse. Mal
|
|
|
|
|
112
Jun 25, 2007, 12:20 AM
Post #34 of 36
(883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
Everything is the same, except where the cable terminates on the trigger, replace that with a pulley, and then terminate the wire at the axle. You would still be pulling the link.
|
|
|
|
|
m2j1s
Jun 25, 2007, 12:28 AM
Post #35 of 36
(874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Posts: 77
|
If you look at the OP website, it says they are coming out with a new 'tactical link cam', just curious if anybody here knows what that entails?
|
|
|
|
|
jhump
Jul 3, 2007, 6:10 PM
Post #36 of 36
(699 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2002
Posts: 602
|
It will be black or camo for military/law enforcement use.
|
|
|
|
|
|