|
gmggg
May 11, 2010, 11:13 PM
Post #51 of 106
(15582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
camhead wrote: edge wrote: gmggg wrote: Ha! That was exactly what I was thinking. Finally limestone is "safe" for trad. Finally, an answer for the Mass tufa porblem! So when they get mass produced do you think I'll get a tufa the price of one discount?
Sure. Every other one would probably break off anyway.
Also, it seems that instead of bolting the flake one could just hand drill through and thread a sling. There would be no bolts; perfectly conforms to modern trad ethic.
|
|
|
|
|
bradley3297
May 12, 2010, 12:10 AM
Post #52 of 106
(15564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2008
Posts: 83
|
lol if you were anywhere on that wall and that flake ever broke off the anti-cam would be the last of your worries. that is a huge flake. youd be dead with or without an anticam hanging from it.
|
|
|
|
|
whipper
May 12, 2010, 12:39 AM
Post #53 of 106
(15554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
How about 2 shorter bars that either slide past each other or one inside the other....or some sort of a spiral adjustment located in the middle of the piece.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
May 12, 2010, 2:58 AM
Post #54 of 106
(15517 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
Matt,
Thanks for posting this. It’s been a fun thread. If I were you, I’d ignore the silly criticism that basically says you didn’t invent the mechanical clamp (duh!). That’s hardly the point. I’m sure lots of people have had the idea about setting a clamp on a flake for protection. But ideas are cheap; the real deal is putting the idea into practice, and that’s what you’re doing. It’s the myriad of details that you’re attending to in order to have the device be useful that separates you from the rest of us dreamers.
The criticism that the device is special purpose is not relevant. I own a couple of Valley Giants. Maybe I use them on 5% of the climbs I do in a season, but when I need them I want them. I’ve never climbed at Squamish, but it appears that you’ll be able to make good use of them there in establishing new, clean ascents.
Also you’re willing to really test the idea in the field http://arcteryx.com (it’s episode 15). That takes some daring. I didn’t really get the connection of the end of the video that shows you with a broken ankle. Did that occur while you were doing the testing?
Takes me back many years ago when the late Craig Luebben was developing the Big Bro as his senior thesis in mechanical engineering at Colorado State Univesity. I was a faculty member on his committee and the only climber. He came into my office one day and asked if I would test the device by falling. I said, “You just flunked.”. We settled for his using a 75 lb. bag of sand.
Cheers,
Rob.calm
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
May 12, 2010, 12:57 PM
Post #55 of 106
(15470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
You could make an anticam for ice. Just put something like these on instead of the cams:
To help protect ice pillars and daggers
|
|
Attachments:
|
raptor.jpg
(10.4 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 12, 2010, 2:14 PM
Post #56 of 106
(15443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
bradley3297 wrote: lol if you were anywhere on that wall and that flake ever broke off the anti-cam would be the last of your worries. that is a huge flake. youd be dead with or without an anticam hanging from it.
But isn't that the danger of this product? As the OP states, it's used to protect features that flex, that are inherently unstable. So it seems dangerous to invent "protection" that attaches you to the unstable feature.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud the OP - both for his climbing vision and his engineering prowess - and I enjoyed The Season. But given the vast number of lines I'd love to climb in my life, I can't see why I need to add this to my bag of tricks.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
May 12, 2010, 2:31 PM
Post #57 of 106
(15425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
sidepull wrote: bradley3297 wrote: lol if you were anywhere on that wall and that flake ever broke off the anti-cam would be the last of your worries. that is a huge flake. youd be dead with or without an anticam hanging from it. But isn't that the danger of this product? As the OP states, it's used to protect features that flex, that are inherently unstable. So it seems dangerous to invent "protection" that attaches you to the unstable feature. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the OP - both for his climbing vision and his engineering prowess - and I enjoyed The Season. But given the vast number of lines I'd love to climb in my life, I can't see why I need to add this to my bag of tricks.
There are plenty of features out there, especially in granite, which flex enough to make cams useless, but that are nowhere near detaching.
|
|
|
|
|
milesenoell
May 12, 2010, 4:02 PM
Post #58 of 106
(15381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156
|
kachoong wrote: You could make an anticam for ice. Just put something like these on instead of the cams: To help protect ice pillars and daggers [image]http://www.climbing.com/news/hotflashes/Norway-41--143klein.jpg[/image]
Plus, ice climbers generally aren't as hung up on safety margins.
|
|
|
|
|
milesenoell
May 12, 2010, 4:12 PM
Post #59 of 106
(15372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156
|
Ankle reconstruction sucks a lot, and it sucks for way longer than seems reasonable, but recovery can be close to complete so just hang in there. Do your ROM exercises and never forget that you are just waiting to get back on the rock.
As for the anti-cam: How much do those suckers weigh?
|
|
|
|
|
bradley3297
May 13, 2010, 12:02 AM
Post #60 of 106
(15302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2008
Posts: 83
|
Ya what camhead said. a part of the flake i believe was bolted for aiding on the first ascent of the grand wall. i dont think the flake would be affected by human weight but it flexes.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 13, 2010, 3:25 AM
Post #61 of 106
(15264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeremy11
May 13, 2010, 4:27 AM
Post #62 of 106
(15247 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 597
|
If you put an Anticam and a Cam on your rack at the same time, do they both get annihilated in a cloud of high energy photons?
Nice project! I can tell there's a lot of time into making this right. Innovation is fun, even for highly specialized pieces. Open source is a nice touch too, since probably no company will make them.
|
|
|
|
|
alexfromithaca
May 13, 2010, 5:22 AM
Post #63 of 106
(15231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2007
Posts: 2
|
Hi Matt,
Great job on the anticam! My friend just pointed me to your post. I actually applied for a US patent on a device that would pinch rock two years ago. Mine is different in that its width cannot be adjusted. I was thinking that the device would need to be operatable with one hand, and I couldn't come up with any adjustable structure that would make that possible. I never patented anything before so I just wanted to see how the process works with this neat idea that I felt was patentable. (And it's not terribly expensive to at least apply for a US patent, as long as you prepare the application yourself  )
You are totally right about not making much money off this invention though . I tried to pitch it to all the US gear makers in 2008 and they all had the same reply: "Interesting idea, but would not be of much use to warrant mass production". There were also concerns about whether a piece of rock would be able to withstand the massive squeezing forces that would result in the event of a climber's fall on this piece.
Check out the pictures of the model I made. I sacrificed a 0.75 Camelot to make it Also if you are at all curious, you can check out my patent application here http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0230268.html.
I want to say that it was awesome for me to go from an idea to an actual working model. I am not an engineer like you, so for me it was truly a rare and satisfying experience. Keep working on your anticam and I am sure it will turn out great. Best of luck!
  
|
|
Attachments:
|
Pic1.jpg
(122 KB)
|
|
|
Pic2.JPG
(54.9 KB)
|
|
|
Pic3.JPG
(81.8 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
mattmaddaloni
May 13, 2010, 6:13 AM
Post #64 of 106
(15218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 26
|
Today I redpointed the Guillotine Flake!!!
I had to climb 15 feet out horizontally from the last Anticam to where the flake became thick enough to hold a regular cam. Pumped out with new route wall grit under my feet, it was terrifying to get that cam in. There isn't a single foot hold until near the very end. Fifteen feet out from those Anticams put everything into perspective. I wasn't scared of that flake anymore, I finally had confidence in the anitcams, everything came together. I clipped that cam and knew I had it in the bag... 30 feet of underclinging later I just made it to the no hands rest and it was over. One year of dreaming, designing, training, preparation and stress. And it's done. WHAT AN ADVENTURE!!!!
and ya, you can actually watch the video tomorrow at http://www.arcteryx.com Bryan Smith with http://reelwaterproduction.com is busting out the editing tonight!
(This post was edited by mattmaddaloni on May 13, 2010, 6:33 AM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
matt-on-flake.jpg
(86.9 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
mattmaddaloni
May 13, 2010, 6:19 AM
Post #65 of 106
(15215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 26
|
Hello Alexfromithica, way to go on designing and building your device. It looks really cool. The range problem was definitely the biggest challenge for me and I needed it to expand quite a lot. The current device I have ranges from 0" to 8.5" which really made the difference in finding placements.
Also super cool to hear from Robdotcalm, thanks for showing support and great to hear a perspective from someone who was part of the Big Bro development, and of course a pioneer like Craig Luebben.
A couple of points to make note for those thinking about this...
1) a scissor does not have a large range. It can only create a large leverage force when the scissor arms are all the way open, the force significantly drops even at 3/4 open.
2) major issue is the size of arm and cam used behind the flake. If you make a bar with a wide T-beam flange it will either lever out the flake or just not fit. The stress analysis calculators in Autodesk Inventor allowed me to take material away from the flange until it was the smallest it could be and still withstand the force applied in a fall. A larger cam and or leveraged cam would also take up too much room and would not fit behind the flake.
3) if you make the outside cams big then the device loads unevenly and tests show that it will eventually rotate until it pops off or if stopped by the inside arm against the back wall will lever out the flake.
4) And finally, if the arms are not strong enough to stop flexing when loaded then you will need a hammer to take the device off... just like when you tighten a locking biner when hanging on it and can't undo it when your not.
So the constants are; small same size cams that load evenly, thin and non flexing t-bar flange and long arms to reach around feature.
In later posts I will explain the spring and barrel components so that anyone who wants to build version 2 can do so.
mm
(This post was edited by mattmaddaloni on May 13, 2010, 7:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
airscape
May 13, 2010, 7:37 AM
Post #66 of 106
(15194 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240
|
mattmaddaloni wrote: Today I redpointed the Guillotine Flake!!! I had to climb 15 feet out horizontally from the last Anticam to where the flake became thick enough to hold a regular cam. Pumped out with new route wall grit under my feet, it was terrifying to get that cam in. There isn't a single foot hold until near the very end. Fifteen feet out from those Anticams put everything into perspective. I wasn't scared of that flake anymore, I finally had confidence in the anitcams, everything came together. I clipped that cam and knew I had it in the bag... 30 feet of underclinging later I just made it to the no hands rest and it was over. One year of dreaming, designing, training, preparation and stress. And it's done. WHAT AN ADVENTURE!!!! and ya, you can actually watch the video tomorrow at http://www.arcteryx.com Bryan Smith with http://reelwaterproduction.com is busting out the editing tonight!
That's awesome!
It's nice to make your own stuff and use it!
well done!.
I had a bit of a thought for a different anti cam:
I have an idea of an anti cam where you have a fork with two parallel prongs with a cam sliding in a slot on one of the prongs, the slot is at an angle to the prong (Farther at the bottom of the fork closer to the front). the other prong has a cam that is fixed in place (or maybe a parallel slot) but can rotate.
If you push the fork over the lip of the flake and pull down the cams grab the flake. the harder you pull the higher the cam goes up the slot and the harder it pinches the flake.
Make sense?
I'll draw a quick sketch if I have time.
|
|
|
|
|
mattmaddaloni
May 14, 2010, 1:29 AM
Post #67 of 106
(15096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 26
|
email I received from a friend today, thanks Andrew
----
Oh, and congrats on your redpoint! I just read about your success on rockclimbing.com.
I’m sure you’ve shot down a lot of ideas, maybe even this one too… :-)
Ok, I’ll try to describe this thing:
Basically the same structure as you have for the arms and pivot points.
Arms held open by a straight wire spring, anchored around the master point at the bottom, and hooked into each arm.
A rope-holder cam similar to a grigri installed against the bottom pivot. This device should have a thumb-tab to be openable.
Webbing is bar-tacked around one axle at the midpoint of one arm (where your spreader bar is anchored)
Webbing passes over/around an axle at the midpoint of the other arm.
Webbing returns around another axle on the first arm, to form a Z-pulley
Webbing passes over the bottom master point and through the holding cam.
Tie-in point is on the end of this webbing.
A slider device with a finger loop can be installed on the sling between the Z-pulley and the holding cam, for tightening one-handed placements. (Simple mechanism, similar to a tibloc or type of sliding belt buckle.)
The idea is: a fall on the sling would pull the arms together with mechanical advantage. It should be designed so the downward force on the sling produces an equal inward force on the arms as the cams do against the rock. But, that’s the part I don’t know: what’s the outward force of the cams against the rock, would 3:1 be enough to balance it, with the help of the grigri cam to prevent it slipping back?
Maybe a sketch over beer would be easier… Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
mattmaddaloni
May 14, 2010, 1:36 AM
Post #68 of 106
(15090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 26
|
Thanks for the email Andrew.
I like the 3 to 1 pulley system idea. It might work better for range than the seriously limited scissor.
If webbing or rope is used there will be some small amount of stretch which will cause the cams on the rock to rotate until the stretch comes out. Not good! A wire cable could work better but it will be more difficult to bite into it with a cam.
and if a large impact fall force occurs you will never be able to create enough force on the cam to undo it.
keep the ideas coming! cheers
mm
(This post was edited by mattmaddaloni on May 14, 2010, 1:37 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 14, 2010, 2:26 AM
Post #69 of 106
(15062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
camhead wrote: sidepull wrote: bradley3297 wrote: lol if you were anywhere on that wall and that flake ever broke off the anti-cam would be the last of your worries. that is a huge flake. youd be dead with or without an anticam hanging from it. But isn't that the danger of this product? As the OP states, it's used to protect features that flex, that are inherently unstable. So it seems dangerous to invent "protection" that attaches you to the unstable feature. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the OP - both for his climbing vision and his engineering prowess - and I enjoyed The Season. But given the vast number of lines I'd love to climb in my life, I can't see why I need to add this to my bag of tricks. There are plenty of features out there, especially in granite, which flex enough to make cams useless, but that are nowhere near detaching.
I'm asking out of sheer ignorance of the physics so if you say I'm wrong I'll buy it, but if a flake would become dangerous if you placed a regular cam behind it, wouldn't it still be dangerous if you fell on it while being protected by an anti-cam? It seems like the first is passive and the second is dynamic and therefore generating more force or is it simply a matter of leverage (insert Johnny Depp joke here).?
|
|
|
|
|
Bolter
May 14, 2010, 3:49 AM
Post #70 of 106
(15035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2009
Posts: 50
|
So, after following this thread, I am impressed. Really.
I like the modified camalot.
I dig this idea and would even carry a few if the route had the opportunity.
So what is the cost of this rig so far??
One or two totally need to make it to the "Nut Museum".
I can follow that you need small cams and low profile to get behind the flake.
On the load put on 100 ton flake, I bet the climber and fall would be minimal to the totality of the situation.
(This post was edited by Bolter on May 14, 2010, 3:51 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
May 14, 2010, 4:25 AM
Post #71 of 106
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
sidepull wrote: camhead wrote: sidepull wrote: bradley3297 wrote: lol if you were anywhere on that wall and that flake ever broke off the anti-cam would be the last of your worries. that is a huge flake. youd be dead with or without an anticam hanging from it. But isn't that the danger of this product? As the OP states, it's used to protect features that flex, that are inherently unstable. So it seems dangerous to invent "protection" that attaches you to the unstable feature. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the OP - both for his climbing vision and his engineering prowess - and I enjoyed The Season. But given the vast number of lines I'd love to climb in my life, I can't see why I need to add this to my bag of tricks. There are plenty of features out there, especially in granite, which flex enough to make cams useless, but that are nowhere near detaching. I'm asking out of sheer ignorance of the physics so if you say I'm wrong I'll buy it, but if a flake would become dangerous if you placed a regular cam behind it, wouldn't it still be dangerous if you fell on it while being protected by an anti-cam? It seems like the first is passive and the second is dynamic and therefore generating more force or is it simply a matter of leverage (insert Johnny Depp joke here).?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
May 14, 2010, 8:25 AM
Post #72 of 106
(14982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
hafilax wrote: sidepull wrote: camhead wrote: sidepull wrote: bradley3297 wrote: lol if you were anywhere on that wall and that flake ever broke off the anti-cam would be the last of your worries. that is a huge flake. youd be dead with or without an anticam hanging from it. But isn't that the danger of this product? As the OP states, it's used to protect features that flex, that are inherently unstable. So it seems dangerous to invent "protection" that attaches you to the unstable feature. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the OP - both for his climbing vision and his engineering prowess - and I enjoyed The Season. But given the vast number of lines I'd love to climb in my life, I can't see why I need to add this to my bag of tricks. There are plenty of features out there, especially in granite, which flex enough to make cams useless, but that are nowhere near detaching. I'm asking out of sheer ignorance of the physics so if you say I'm wrong I'll buy it, but if a flake would become dangerous if you placed a regular cam behind it, wouldn't it still be dangerous if you fell on it while being protected by an anti-cam? It seems like the first is passive and the second is dynamic and therefore generating more force or is it simply a matter of leverage (insert Johnny Depp joke here).? When they were hammering bongs into the Split Pillar on the Grand Wall the pins at the bottom started falling out so they popped in a bolt. That flake could flex enough that the full range of the cam could tip out and just pull right out. The rock is also much stronger under tension, like pulling with the anticam, than under sheer, such as pushing out on it with a cam. I agree that being anchored to the flake with an anticam should it go would be deadly but I think that is incredibly unlikely.
Firstly, huge congrats mate, well done on both the development of the anticam and the redpoint.
Would it be more correct to say, " The rock is also much stronger under clamping tension, like pulling with the anticam, than under leverage,". In other words, you may have to develop a new way of talking about these unique pieces because the old paradigm of language associated with cam technology does not really apply to what you have here.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 14, 2010, 11:29 AM
Post #73 of 106
(14956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Fair enough. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
evanwish
May 14, 2010, 4:21 PM
Post #74 of 106
(14890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
Just wondering, why do you use such small lobes with such small range?
I considered this design before, and realized, if you use really large lobes, and use the the full logrithmic spiral then you could get much much more range.
|
|
|
|
|
evanwish
May 14, 2010, 4:25 PM
Post #75 of 106
(14886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
I considered this once before and even cut some wooden lobes out and made a wooden cam just to satisfy my curiosity of the subject (not that it was made to actually hold any weight though).
I'll post a picture of the concept when i get home in 3 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
