|
|
|
|
Bradly
Aug 2, 2009, 5:48 AM
Post #1 of 170
(25393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2009
Posts: 4
|
In June I broke a purple link cam climbing Kunza Korner at Smith rock. Omega Pacific has had the link cam since June and is investigating why it broke. Until they give me information or release a statement about why it broke I thought I would present the facts to those in the climbing community. The rock of Kunza Korner is tuff, but I’m not sure what type of tuff. If you are unfamiliar, here are pictures of the route taken by someone else: http://www.summitpost.org/...26/kunza-korner.html
http://www.summitpost.org/...26/kunza-korner.html
The placement was at the crux about 50 or so feet off the ground. I weigh about 146 lbs and when I fell the cam was at or less than a foot below my feet. The placement was in a pocket where the crack above and below the placement tapered out. It was cammed to the middle lobe (if you’re familiar with link cams I hope that makes sense). The stem was angled down about 45 to 60 degrees. I don’t think I could have angled it down any more because the height of the pocket wouldn’t allow, but I don’t think the cam was bottomed out in the crack. I fell and the cam pulled immediately, the nut placed below held and there were no injuries. I inspected the cam before finishing the climb as it was sitting on the rope right in front of me. Here is the link to some pictures: http://picasaweb.google.com/bpfarra/Purple#
As you can see both middle lobes on one side of the cam failed. The lobes that broke were the lobes contacting the rock (the middle of the three lobes of the link cam). The other side of the cam, cammed just fine after the fall, and all of the moving parts of the broken side continued to move just fine. In other words there was no damage or failure of any of the pins that connect the lobes. The failure was that of the metal at both middle lobes on one side of the cam. The stem was just fine (a subtle bend in the stem, which may indicate the bottom lobes broke, that’s just speculation. The cam had been placed a few times but never fallen on before.
I'm sure OP will let me/us know what they came up with in their investigation soon. I tried to include as much detail here as possible, but if I've left some important detail out be sure to let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
agdavis
Aug 2, 2009, 6:24 AM
Post #2 of 170
(25365 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2009
Posts: 310
|
Wow, scary. It's crazy how the cam lobe just sheared like that.
|
|
|
|
|
blueshrimp
Aug 2, 2009, 6:26 AM
Post #3 of 170
(25362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2008
Posts: 147
|
Uuuygh, scary. There are several threads in here about OP link cams failing in the manner you describe. Eventually there was some thread from some OP person saying it wasn't a "manufacturer defect" somewhere if I recall. But these cams seem to fail too often for me to buy them, and all in the same way, that metal piece shearing straight through. Blech.
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Aug 2, 2009, 8:44 AM
Post #4 of 170
(25329 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
UNRELATED RANT:
I really don't know why they went in the small direction rather than the large.
I'm glad they made a .75 but they really should have made a #3 instead of a .5. In my opinion anyway. That size is way more useful and versatile.
Besides, if you think about the OP #1 and #2- they are actually not #1 and #2 cams, but rather .75-.5 and #1-.75 cams(respectively). If they had made a #3 size, it would be ideal, the large #2 down to the small #1 sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Aug 2, 2009, 9:08 AM
Post #5 of 170
(25319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
not to be an ass, but you did just register here to tell everyone that your link cam failed, without providing much info, apart from the fact that OP is already investigating?
I see that you are presenting the whole thing in a neutral and quiet tone, which is a good thing, but the whole "my gear by $Manufacturer broke!" is how rumors are started.
Should there really be an issue, then of course it should be made known, even if it will be bad for the manufacturer (OP in this case), but how about waiting until you get their answer, before you "publish" your results?
That aside: link cams are a specialized piece, and it could very well be that pockets are not good for them at all. Wasnt there a thread on a very similar failure a while ago (a pocket somewhere in Joshua tree i think?).
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
climboard
Aug 2, 2009, 1:10 PM
Post #6 of 170
(25257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 503
|
Bradly wrote: In June I broke a purple link cam climbing Kunza Korner at Smith rock. Omega Pacific has had the link cam since June and is investigating why it broke. Until they give me information or release a statement about why it broke I thought I would present the facts to those in the climbing community. The rock of Kunza Korner is tuff, but I’m not sure what type of tuff. If you are unfamiliar, here are pictures of the route taken by someone else: http://www.summitpost.org/...26/kunza-korner.html http://www.summitpost.org/...26/kunza-korner.html The placement was at the crux about 50 or so feet off the ground. I weigh about 146 lbs and when I fell the cam was at or less than a foot below my feet. The placement was in a pocket where the crack above and below the placement tapered out. It was cammed to the middle lobe (if you’re familiar with link cams I hope that makes sense). The stem was angled down about 45 to 60 degrees. I don’t think I could have angled it down any more because the height of the pocket wouldn’t allow, but I don’t think the cam was bottomed out in the crack. I fell and the cam pulled immediately, the nut placed below held and there were no injuries. I inspected the cam before finishing the climb as it was sitting on the rope right in front of me. Here is the link to some pictures: http://picasaweb.google.com/bpfarra/Purple# As you can see both middle lobes on one side of the cam failed. The lobes that broke were the lobes contacting the rock (the middle of the three lobes of the link cam). The other side of the cam, cammed just fine after the fall, and all of the moving parts of the broken side continued to move just fine. In other words there was no damage or failure of any of the pins that connect the lobes. The failure was that of the metal at both middle lobes on one side of the cam. The stem was just fine (a subtle bend in the stem, which may indicate the bottom lobes broke, that’s just speculation. The cam had been placed a few times but never fallen on before. I'm sure OP will let me/us know what they came up with in their investigation soon. I tried to include as much detail here as possible, but if I've left some important detail out be sure to let me know.
This sounds awfully similar to the Joshua Tree/Left Ski Track incident in which it was determined that the cam broke due to leverage on the hinges caused by a bottomed out placement-
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
Of course this is speculation but I suggest reading through the thread to see if the placement sounds similar to yours.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Aug 2, 2009, 2:44 PM
Post #7 of 170
(25212 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
Bradley, Thanks for the detailed report on the failure of the cam and the thoughtful manner in which it was presented. As the owner of Link Cams, I found the report of value.
Cheers,
Rob.calm
|
|
|
|
|
malcolm777b
Aug 2, 2009, 4:00 PM
Post #8 of 170
(25147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2009
Posts: 204
|
irregularpanda wrote: UNRELATED RANT: I really don't know why they went in the small direction rather than the large. I'm glad they made a .75 but they really should have made a #3 instead of a .5. In my opinion anyway. That size is way more useful and versatile. .
Even more badass would have been an offwidth LC. Eliminate the need to carry BD #4-#6. Could you imagine how far out the lobe would stick out of the crack when fully cammed???
|
|
|
|
|
malcolm777b
Aug 2, 2009, 4:04 PM
Post #9 of 170
(25145 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2009
Posts: 204
|
Bradly wrote: The stem was angled down about 45 to 60 degrees. I don’t think I could have angled it down any more because the height of the pocket wouldn’t allow, but I don’t think the cam was bottomed out in the crack. I fell and the cam pulled immediately, the nut placed below held and there were no injuries.
So, what would happen to the placement as you fell on it? Would it try to rotate such that the cam lobes were leveraging on the pocket constriction? As noted above, this DOES sound extremely similar to the JT situation. I would be extremely hesitant to place an OP Link Cam out of the direction of pull...especially if it will get leveraged by the rock in some manner.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Aug 2, 2009, 4:31 PM
Post #10 of 170
(25134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
blueshrimp wrote: Uuuygh, scary. There are several threads in here about OP link cams failing in the manner you describe. Eventually there was some thread from some OP person saying it wasn't a "manufacturer defect" somewhere if I recall. But these cams seem to fail too often for me to buy them, and all in the same way, that metal piece shearing straight through. Blech.
um, no, there havent. there has been one previous thread regarding the failure of a Link cam @ Joshua Tree on Left Ski Track in a very particular placement- one which happened to be the perfect example of the link cams weakness. i will also note, though, that about a month prior to that i attempted that route and put a #1 camalot in that pod and replaced it with a #3 higher because the placement didnt look like it would hold a fall- either from the flare or the cam would lever itself out.
The recall was a separate issue that OP addressed before any failures of the cam occurred in the field due to that issue (pins @ the links, if i recall correctly).
as to this one...it sounds vaguely similar, except that the ski track cam was horizontal and could not move at all. this one was more downward. I'll be curious to see OP's response on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Aug 2, 2009, 4:36 PM
Post #11 of 170
(25130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
Thanks for sharing, and thanks for pics too.
Nice report.
|
|
|
|
|
Bradly
Aug 2, 2009, 5:24 PM
Post #12 of 170
(25098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2009
Posts: 4
|
Yes qwert, I did register so that I could provide the climbing community some valuable information. I have provided only facts about the circumstances surrounding the placement and fall with no opinions up to this point. I published no "results", only facts. The reason I didn't post this in June when it happened is because I wanted OP to have as much time as possible to come up with a solution to the problem. I have spoken with OP several times and I believe they are doing a thorough investigation. Including the potential to go to Smith and make a cast model of the placement to bring back to the lab and test. The last I heard the cam was undergoing some sort of metallurgy testing. I know they have the safety of the climber in mind with this investigation. However, I believe it is someone's responsibility to present this information to the climbing community in a timely manner. I would want this info if I was placing link cams, and I would have wanted it back in June when it happened...sorry. There is no "rumor" being started...a link cam failed, again. This does sound familiar to the JT situation, and you are right qwert, maybe OP will come out and say that link cams should not be placed in pockets. As the "crux piece" you would hope you could place it in any constriction within the appropriate size range.
BradIn reply to: qwert wrote: not to be an ass, but you did just register here to tell everyone that your link cam failed, without providing much info, apart from the fact that OP is already investigating? I see that you are presenting the whole thing in a neutral and quiet tone, which is a good thing, but the whole "my gear by $Manufacturer broke!" is how rumors are started. Should there really be an issue, then of course it should be made known, even if it will be bad for the manufacturer (OP in this case), but how about waiting until you get their answer, before you "publish" your results? That aside: link cams are a specialized piece, and it could very well be that pockets are not good for them at all. Wasnt there a thread on a very similar failure a while ago (a pocket somewhere in Joshua tree i think?). qwert |
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Aug 2, 2009, 5:54 PM
Post #13 of 170
(25073 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
irregularpanda wrote: UNRELATED RANT: I really don't know why they went in the small direction rather than the large. I'm glad they made a .75 but they really should have made a #3 instead of a .5. In my opinion anyway. That size is way more useful and versatile. Besides, if you think about the OP #1 and #2- they are actually not #1 and #2 cams, but rather .75-.5 and #1-.75 cams(respectively). If they had made a #3 size, it would be ideal, the large #2 down to the small #1 sizes.
They might have not done the #3 because of the long stem/long trigger pull needed for full retraction in that size. The #2 basically takes the full span of my (average/medium) hands to pull.
I find the Links really shine in either blind or in between sizes placements, which for me tend to be smaller. There's so much more range/play in the larger sizes, I make fewer errors picking the wrong size in the bigger cams.
|
|
|
|
|
atlnq9
Aug 2, 2009, 10:49 PM
Post #14 of 170
(24962 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 111
|
Although these seem like they will work good in unusual placements they shouldn't be. It is the fact that they use powder metallurgy for the steel lobes.
Not surprised to see another failure. I won't ever use one.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 2, 2009, 11:05 PM
Post #15 of 170
(24945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
qwert wrote: not to be an ass, but you did just register here to tell everyone that your link cam failed, without providing much info, apart from the fact that OP is already investigating?
2 months is way ample time for Omega Pacific to repond. Its really DUMB on their part to let this fester like this.
My Links just came off my rack. Silence is this matter is SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I would have posted it immediately and on every climbing board I read too.
it appears more and more that healyje has been right all along about this particular Lowe design.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 2, 2009, 11:07 PM
Post #16 of 170
(24939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
malcolm777b wrote: irregularpanda wrote: UNRELATED RANT: I really don't know why they went in the small direction rather than the large. I'm glad they made a .75 but they really should have made a #3 instead of a .5. In my opinion anyway. That size is way more useful and versatile. . Even more badass would have been an offwidth LC. Eliminate the need to carry BD #4-#6. Could you imagine how far out the lobe would stick out of the crack when fully cammed???
To get enough distance necessaty to retract the cams the stem would have to be like a foot long or something. Think about it. There are numerous practical limitaitons to this design and that is one of them.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
a-e-jones
Aug 2, 2009, 11:26 PM
Post #17 of 170
(24921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2008
Posts: 295
|
dingus aren't you still using aliens?
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Aug 2, 2009, 11:26 PM
Post #18 of 170
(24917 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
This seems like just another case of incorrect usuage of gear. Sort of like the 'my harness failed' thread a week ago.
The fact that TWO lobes broke and the angle of the shear line indicate that these lobes broke under sideways loading. As far as I am concern this a case closed incorrect gear usuage.
Cams are not designed to be loaded from the side. An inherant and part of the Link cam design make this sideways loading much more possible and allows the possibility of increased leverage.
It certainly shouldn't be any surprise to have gear fail if it is loaded completely incorrectly. If you load an aluminium biner over the edge and break it would you post the same thread?
Any placement that does, or has the potential to load a Link cam's lobes sideways should be avoided at all costs.
Bradly wrote: The placement was in a pocket where the crack above and below the placement tapered out. It was cammed to the middle lobe (if you’re familiar with link cams I hope that makes sense). The stem was angled down about 45 to 60 degrees. I don’t think I could have angled it down any more because the height of the pocket wouldn’t allow, but I don’t think the cam was bottomed out in the crack.
Bradly wrote: As the "crux piece" you would hope you could place it in any constriction within the appropriate size range.
Bradly wrote: The reason I didn't post this in June when it happened is because I wanted OP to have as much time as possible to come up with a solution to the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Aug 2, 2009, 11:50 PM
Post #19 of 170
(24893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
dingus wrote: 2 months is way ample time for Omega Pacific to repond. Its really DUMB on their part to let this fester like this. My Links just came off my rack. Silence is this matter is SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE. I would have posted it immediately and on every climbing board I read too. it appears more and more that healyje has been right all along about this particular Lowe design. DMT
What sort of response do you want dingus? Testing takes time.
Most indications from the description and the analysis of the break indicates a sideways force on the cam. Not surprisingly the cam broke.
I would expect that Omega Pacific engineers would had a similar preliminarly conclusion very quickly. Doing a metalurgical analysis to check if the material was within specifications is prudent to confirm that manufacturing flaws are not a factor. This takes time.
Shit I'm pretty sure I could break a Link cam by hand if I try. Put excessive leverage on the outside lobes while the lobes are pulled back and you are putting alot of force on those links. But cams are made for compression forces. And used correctly they will be fine.
I don't own link cams but I'll happily buy your link cams off you dingus.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 3, 2009, 12:31 AM
Post #20 of 170
(24857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Link Cams are built as well as any such a design can be and with the best materials available. The design delivers unique advantages, but along with those advantages comes limitations due to the current state of material science. The linkage tabs (that the axles go through) are thin and frail and there is just no way to change that without simply producing an even heavier product.
Bottom line is, at the moment you pull a Link Cam (or any other piece) off your rack, you are staring at the reality of the full potential and all the limitations of the piece - place it accordingly. With Link Cams that means that any placement that will exert [leveraging] sideways forces on the linkages, or one where the cam lobes of a rotating cam will encounter obstacles, should be avoided at all cost.
There's likely nothing wrong with this Link Cam or the rc.com LST one - they just ended up being used in placements that played to their limitations rather than their advantages. If you aren't prepared to deal with the limitations of any given design along with the advantages, then you probably shouldn't have it on your rack.
(This post was edited by healyje on Aug 3, 2009, 6:15 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
davidbr
Aug 3, 2009, 1:04 AM
Post #21 of 170
(24819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2004
Posts: 191
|
Thanks for posting that, Bradly.
You're not denigrating OP, nor its product. It's good of you to let us know what's happened, and start a discussion that could prevent some else from placing themselves in a dangerous situation. OP is free to join in on the discussion, and it seems that they're usually pretty good about doing so.
Sounds like it wasn't an ideal placement, but if it was your only option, it was probably worth the cost of a new cam. If nothing else, it would have taken some of the shock before you hit the next piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agdavis
Aug 3, 2009, 4:17 AM
Post #23 of 170
(24746 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2009
Posts: 310
|
davidbr wrote: Thanks for posting that, Bradly. You're not denigrating OP, nor its product. It's good of you to let us know what's happened, and start a discussion that could prevent some else from placing themselves in a dangerous situation.
I fully agree. I haven't placed my Link that often, but to be honest I never thought about this happening -- makes a lot of sense and now I'm aware of it. Thank you Bradley for bringing this up. Ignore the haters.
|
|
|
|
|
atlnq9
Aug 3, 2009, 4:26 AM
Post #24 of 170
(24737 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 111
|
healyje wrote: Link Cams are built as well as any such a design can be and with the best materials available. The design delivers unique advantages, but along with those advantages comes limitations due to the current state of material science. The linkage tabs (that the axles go through) are thin and frail and there is just no way to change that without simply producing an even heavier product. Bottom line is, at the moment you pull a Link Cam (or any other piece) off your rack, you are staring at the reality of the full potential and all the limitations of the piece - place it accordingly. With Link Cams that means that any placement that will exert [leveraging] sideways forces on the linkages, or one where the cam lobes of a rotating cam will encounter obstacles, should be avoided at all cost. There's likely nothing wrong with this Link Cam or the rc.com LST one - they just ended up being used in placements that played to their limitations rather than their advantages. If you aren't prepared to deal with the limitations of any given design along with the advantages, then you probably shouldn't have it on your rack.
Very well put.
However I think that the will cause the lobes to break in placements where the stem sticks straight out well before a BD or Wild country cam will break. For the Zeros they even say you can make a placement where the stem sticks straight out...
It is a matter of the material they chose and the manufacturing process not withstanding this type of load for the thin sections under this kind of placement.
You would think that they would highly advise against unusual placements even though the cam range allows you to make the placement. If you are using other cams I don't see this being quite as bad of problem since the design and material characteristics lend themselves to it better..
Edited to show the quote I was replying to
(This post was edited by atlnq9 on Aug 3, 2009, 11:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
michaellane
Aug 3, 2009, 4:48 AM
Post #25 of 170
(24725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2004
Posts: 89
|
Hey, Everyone ...
It's true this investigation has taken some weeks, but it's been necessary as we've looked at it from every possible angle and have been experimenting with possible solutions from a manufacturing end.
However, the report is due this week, in fact, and, as is our policy, we'll respond to the climber (Bradley) before releasing any information to the public. I'll do so, though, when we've done that.
However, speaking generally, I think a few things said in this thread are accurate.
Link Cams are specialty pieces and have held up well for hundreds or thousands of climbers since we introduced them. They are, however, vulnerable to damage and failure if subjected to torsional loading that requires the relationship of the head/axle and the rock to change much during a fall, especially if the placement is bottoming or loads the lower-end linkages to be stressed over any kind of edge or intrusion. This isn't a surprise,really ... the fact that their lobes consist of hinged components when other cams are made of a single piece of material made this an obvious characteristic from the start.
Bottom line is that the technology that provides Link Cams their greatest benefit (range) is also what introduces their clearest limitation (durability during weird loads).
We're doing a couple things to address this:
1) We're looking at new link designs that strengthen the hinges to make them stronger.
and
2) We'll be rewriting our literature to emphasize proper placement of Link Cams with a clear warning about the potential consequences of placing them in ways they could be subject to damage.
Both these changes are in effect now.
Link Cams are safe, but they must be placed in direction of pull and in a manner that eliminates the likelihood of the cam rotating during a load. They are ideal pieces, but not necessarily for every placement you come across. Do we like this? Nah. I wish they were as bombproof as the burliest piece of gear you can imagine ... and we're working on how to get as close to that ideal as possible ... but the truth is they'll always be a specialty piece.
We've been talking a lot about this, as you might imagine and we're not resting until we can wring out every bit of improvement in the design we can.
In the meantime, we welcome your feedback and observations. You can contact me, directly, any time you like if you want to talk more about it.
And ... regarding #3 ... we hear you! But to do a #3 with the same range and ratio of the other four would require a trigger pull/length of such a size as to, pretty much, eliminate anyone without King Kong-sized hands. If, however, we changed it up a bit and reduced the overall range/ration to, say, 2:1 (the others are 2.5:1), would that still be of interest to you? Let me know ... I don't know if this violates rc.com's policy about manufacturers doing market research, but I'll throw it out there.
Best Regards,
--ML
_________________________
Michael Lane
Omega Pacific
800.360.3990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
