|
wmfork
Jan 6, 2008, 2:45 AM
Post #1 of 35
(4369 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
It's a BD 0.2 micro camalot. The cam stop on one of the outer lobe sheared off (not sure how that happened); the spring came off the hook (so 2 lobes do not expand anymore); and of course, 2 lobes (that held) are really mangled from the fall(s).
The cam was placed in a shallow crack probably no more than 30 degree from downward pull, but it could not rotate itself (b/c of the shallowness) easily during the fall.
I'm not completely surprised, as the 1+ inch rigid part of the stem has a tendency to torque the cam like that, but I'm in the market for a replacement now. I'm thinking WC zero Z4 with that cool stem termination, since I don't know how I'd want to trust a new alien these days, sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 6, 2008, 2:49 AM
Post #2 of 35
(4359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
wmfork wrote: The cam was placed in a shallow crack probably no more than 30 degree from downward pull, but it could not rotate itself (b/c of the shallowness) easily during the fall.
That seems to be the theme for this New Year.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 6, 2008, 3:03 AM
Post #3 of 35
(4320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Small cams of all makes do blow on occasion. We (me included) expect a lot out of them most of the time, but sometimes we just ask too much. Really small cams need to be in solid, well-oriented, and in good rock for them to deliver for you. If they are are in a position where they rotate, get leveraged, or otherwise get moving then all bets are off. Though not good in shallow cracks, it's worth taking a look a ball nuts as well. I took a half-dozen wingers on to a #3 recently and it held up like a champ (and came right out).
|
|
|
|
|
chriss
Jan 6, 2008, 6:05 PM
Post #4 of 35
(4169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
wmfork wrote: really mangled from the fall(s).
It held? More than once?
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Jan 6, 2008, 7:00 PM
Post #5 of 35
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
healyje wrote: Small cams of all makes do blow on occasion. We ( me included) expect a lot out of them most of the time, but sometimes we just ask too much. Really small cams need to be in solid, well-oriented, and in good rock for them to deliver for you. If they are are in a position where they rotate, get leveraged, or otherwise get moving then all bets are off. Though not good in shallow cracks, it's worth taking a look a ball nuts as well. I took a half-dozen wingers on to a #3 recently and it held up like a champ ( and came right out).
So, I'm wondering what this means for cams in horizontals (i.e. leveraging) especially when they flair or are uneven, and/or are shallow. Perhaps if the rout does not wander, there is no issue, but what about a route that zig-zags, and may imply horizontal torsion on any one piece.
I climb a lot at the Gunks and MANY of the horizontal cracks there are just deep enough to accept a cam. Additionally, the routes there can wander drastically.
I 've been learning quite a bit in the Broken LC thread, but this is a specific issue I don't think has been addressed. Like wise, I know that a cam should not be jammed to the back of a crack, lest it get stuck. But, now it seams that placing a cam against the terminus of a crack will also likely imply torsional forces in the case of a fall. (unless oriented exactly in line with a fall)
I'm all verclempt. Discuss amoungst yourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 6, 2008, 7:55 PM
Post #8 of 35
(4049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
where was this, Shumin?
glad you're all right, and that you avoided any make gear protection systems m43tb0mbzZ.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jan 6, 2008, 8:07 PM
Post #9 of 35
(4041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
boymeetsrock wrote: So, I'm wondering what this means for cams in horizontals (i.e. leveraging) especially when they flair or are uneven, and/or are shallow. Perhaps if the route does not wander, there is no issue, but what about a route that zig-zags, and may imply horizontal torsion on any one piece.
Usually, the piece subjected to horizontal forces in not the one holding the fall. Of course, if it rotates and then subseqently has to hold a fall because higher pieces pulled, it will have to rotate back, and those two rotations could spell trouble.
In reply to: I climb a lot at the Gunks and MANY of the horizontal cracks there are just deep enough to accept a cam. Additionally, the routes there can wander drastically.
Rotational loads on cams in horizontal cracks on wandering routes are probably best addressed by double rope technique, but there are some things you just have to live with. Critical placements that will clearly be subjected to rotational loads require, if possible, placing two pieces in opposition in the same horizontal crack.
Many gunks horizontals have "keyhole" features that allow a nut to be inserted in the crack, slid sideways, and then pulled out to wedge in a constriction. I am always surprised when people ignore these much better placements in favor of what is often a mediocre cam.
|
|
|
|
|
eliclimbs
Jan 6, 2008, 8:18 PM
Post #10 of 35
(4027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2006
Posts: 60
|
Yeah, that's my bad. It was a fun outing though. I'm going to show those pictures to my girlfriend to scare her.
Eli
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
Jan 6, 2008, 8:35 PM
Post #11 of 35
(4004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
gt29905 wrote: You're looking for a replacement, I'm wondering why you're not considering C3s?
Already have one... just looking for a 4cu replacement. I'm not particularly excited about the master cam from the little info I can gather.
To camhead:
It was at Eldo. I'm thinking a gear-ripping meatbombz may just catch up to me at some point, but one can pray. Oh yeah, congrats, even though I've never met clausti. All I have is a drawing of my ass by some chick left at the table...
To eliclimbs:
No worries man. Don't scare your gf too much now.
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Jan 6, 2008, 8:45 PM
Post #12 of 35
(3982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
Glad you're ok. Thanks for posting. A timely theme that probably needs repeating for the benefit of others.
If that was a LinkCam, everyone would be demanding that the cam be redesigned so as to not be damaged in a rotating placement.
Glad it's a happy ending (of the climbing type). 
(This post was edited by bent_gate on Jan 6, 2008, 8:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Jan 6, 2008, 8:51 PM
Post #13 of 35
(3973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
Here's a question.
Have you contacted BD? They may want to hear your story and do a bit of research. That's how better products are made.
The rest of the previous statements I have no comment about.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 6, 2008, 10:37 PM
Post #14 of 35
(3908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
boymeetsrock wrote: healyje wrote: Small cams of all makes do blow on occasion. We ( me included) expect a lot out of them most of the time, but sometimes we just ask too much. Really small cams need to be in solid, well-oriented, and in good rock for them to deliver for you. If they are are in a position where they rotate, get leveraged, or otherwise get moving then all bets are off. Though not good in shallow cracks, it's worth taking a look a ball nuts as well. I took a half-dozen wingers on to a #3 recently and it held up like a champ ( and came right out). So, I'm wondering what this means for cams in horizontals (i.e. leveraging) especially when they flair or are uneven, and/or are shallow. Perhaps if the rout does not wander, there is no issue, but what about a route that zig-zags, and may imply horizontal torsion on any one piece.
Rotation is a big deal and as rgold states, if 'wandering' is so big a problem it can't be managed by appropriate slinging, then you need to switch to half ropes. A lot of times folks get away with clipping cams directly or using sport draws on them, but other times the odd human will get smoked doing it. There are two problems with rotation:
1) The cam lobes are set in motion - you often see this on splitters where folks will clip directly into the cam. When they fall, all the cams below then rotate straight out as the rope is loaded. This can be a problem if the top piece doesn't hold because the next piece in line was rotated to the horizontal and must rotate back down in the process of it becoming the new piece you're falling onto. That process of rotating downward sets the cam lobes into motion against the stone - very smooth stone in the case of the Creek - and what you are asking is for those cam lobes to stop moving and regrip the rock once the cam finishes rotating down. Most of the time they do and so the practice of directly clipping cams continues - but every now and then someone gets smoked and more than one cam pulls and, sometimes they deck.
2) The cam and or cam lobes may get damaged or broken - If the cam is [initially] free to rotate there may be irregularities or obstructions the cam lobes may encounter in the process of rotating. The rapid braking of the rotation by such an obstruction has a real hammering and leveraging effect on the piece and so you can sometimes see broken / split cam lobes or blown cam stops.
As someone above just said - you should be feeling pretty good about that cam - it did it's job under what sounds like somewhat questionable circumstances.
(This post was edited by healyje on Jan 6, 2008, 10:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
chriss
Jan 7, 2008, 2:02 AM
Post #15 of 35
(3800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
wmfork wrote: chriss wrote: It held? More than once? I'm pretty sure the last fall broke the cam stop. I took 2 short falls and my partner took the longer one (probably no more than 20 ft, but with only 40ft of rope out). There was a better placed green C3 only a few inches below, so I was glad the $25 mgear special took all the punishment instead. Next time I'm bringing dynamite sticks to deepen those cracks  .
I wouldn't call this cam "broken". It held, meaning didn't pull out. It's damaged now and shouldn't be reused. But by your own admission, it was a sub par placement. Sounds like you got your money's worth. Why not get another?
|
|
|
|
|
sky7high
Jan 7, 2008, 3:16 AM
Post #16 of 35
(3734 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 478
|
Just to strengthen a point already made, has anyone here read the BD camalot instruction manual?
It actually warns specifically against these placements.
with that in mind, the cam's performance was impressive. I have also been stopped by only 2 lobes of a cam, in this case it was a Chouinard #1 camalot, the dual stem model. (The rock broke) That was when I decided BD was the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
throb
Jan 7, 2008, 4:24 AM
Post #17 of 35
(3671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 63
|
bent_gate wrote: If that was a LinkCam, everyone would be demanding that the cam be redesigned so as to not be damaged in a rotating placement.
Or if it was an Alien.
|
|
|
|
|
Nnorthwall
Jan 7, 2008, 4:24 AM
Post #18 of 35
(3671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2007
Posts: 11
|
Picture show very soft aluminum alloy cams.
Seems like mush mellow?
Cam material should be 7075-T6(hard air craft alloy aluminum) aluminum alloy.
|
|
|
|
|
throb
Jan 7, 2008, 2:22 PM
Post #19 of 35
(3588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 63
|
wmfork wrote: I'm not particularly excited about the master cam from the little info I can gather..
What negatives have you heard about the Master cams?
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Jan 7, 2008, 3:47 PM
Post #20 of 35
(3502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
Nnorthwall wrote: Picture show very soft aluminum alloy cams. Seems like mush mellow? Cam material should be 7075-T6(hard air craft alloy aluminum) aluminum alloy.
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
Jan 7, 2008, 6:54 PM
Post #21 of 35
(3375 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
Not really anything negative, besides that it's already 2008 and I thought we'd see more progress.
Compared to the zero, it still has that rigid stem section coming out of the axe. Unless the mgear spec is wrong, compared to all other micro cams, it has the smallest expansion range (less than even the zero). It does not have internal spring system like the aliens, which for all the talk of narrower head, has the added benefit that each pair of lobes sit that much closer, making a two good lobe placement feel a bit more secure. While the thumb loop models the camalot C4s, the termination is still crimped, unlike the smooth 1 piece design of the C4s.
I mean, really, the cosmetic improvements may be really nice, but where is the real innovation here?
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Jan 7, 2008, 7:13 PM
Post #22 of 35
(3321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
You mention that it is a .2 Camalot? I thought they stopped at .3, at least, I think they do now.
Also, is that surface rust on the lobes?
Have you had any communication with Black Diamond?
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 7, 2008, 7:23 PM
Post #23 of 35
(3288 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
wmfork wrote: Not really anything negative, besides that it's already 2008 and I thought we'd see more progress.
From what I hear they're still on target for first deliveries next month - the only delay was in sourcing the thumbloop parts, otherwise they've been churning a parts inventory to do an assembly run.
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
Jan 7, 2008, 7:25 PM
Post #24 of 35
(3284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
That's embedded rock (hard sandstone). BD used to make non dual-axel 0.1 and 0.2 camalots before they revamped with C3s and C4s. I have not contacted BD (what am I going to tell them, that their discontinued cam has design limitation?)
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Jan 7, 2008, 7:30 PM
Post #25 of 35
(3267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
wmfork wrote: That's embedded rock (hard sandstone). BD used to make non dual-axel 0.1 and 0.2 camalots before they revamped with C3s and C4s. I have not contacted BD (what am I going to tell them, that their discontinued cam has design limitation?)
Never liked the Micro Camalots very much, so I didn't know/couldn't remember if they made .1/.2.
RE: Contacting BD, it would seem the .3 isn't so far off the .2 that it isn't significant.
Quite frankly, you bombed off ( 20' if I read this correctly ) multiple times onto a average to poor piece rated at 8KN ( or less, that's the .3 number ). It held the fall(s), but was badly damaged.
What was the "design flaw" again?
-Murf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Points for Black diamond gear! 
1
