|
billcoe_
Mar 17, 2006, 8:11 PM
Post #26 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: The stems. THe stems on the Metolius (and other 3 lobe cams) are on the outside of the cams. Making them wider. The C3 seems to have the stems on the inside somewhere...
DOHH, Of course, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
rockgoat
Mar 17, 2006, 8:52 PM
Post #27 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2003
Posts: 122
|
From what I heard from BD is that they make all metal goods in the USA.
C3's look good..... :D
In reply to: All of CCH stuff is made in the US by Dave and his crew. I doubt black diamond actually makes their cams in the US, does anyone know for sure? I go out of my way to buy from the US when I can, that is just my own preference and in my opinion another reason to get Aliens. |
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Mar 17, 2006, 9:10 PM
Post #28 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
In reply to: It seems like aliens have been around forever, just wondering how long the hybrids have been around and the internal spring.
Other companies have done offset sizes, so I can't imagine there is a patent on the hydbrid concept.
I love aliens, but I would be happy to see other companies also offer internal springs. Especially since CCH has been struggling to keep their act together.
|
|
|
|
|
kimgraves
Mar 17, 2006, 10:19 PM
Post #30 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 1186
|
In reply to: Ok, not a cam expert but: I want four lobes, not three, if I can get them. If I get them with three lobes of an Alien (done it plenty), at least I had the alien on the rack and could have had four if I could get the cam in deep enough.
Hi Kate,
I have a question for you because you are an expert... :wink:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=70803
I can certainly see why you'd want four lobes if you can get them - more degrees of freedom for the pro to conform to the crack. But with three cams of a 4CU in a crack (see above) wouldn't you get a rotation of the unit if it was fallen on - in the case above, CLOCKWISE (my arrow is pointing in the WRONG direction). Wouldn't a 3CU be more stable in that circumstance?
Thanks and regards,
Kim
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Mar 17, 2006, 10:37 PM
Post #31 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
The BD cam that I really think suffers from being too wide is the .5 camalot. Apparently this will remain an issue as the C3s don't seem to go that large.
Yes that width makes the .5 feel super bomber when I get it in but most of the time I find it's just a little too wide. Orange TCU or Red Alien usually works better.
|
|
|
|
|
euroford
Mar 17, 2006, 10:47 PM
Post #32 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 2913
|
having pulled the alien 3cam placement a couple of time myself, i can tell you its not exacly stable. usually just enough to get up, place another piece and get off it. 1/3 of the time the placement falls out when i get off it, 1/3 of the time it pops when the second starts jugging and 1/3 of the time it stays in but i basiclly consider it a C3 placement at best. i've never fallon on that kind of placement and certainly intend to keep it that way.
i think more realisticlly, and i would draw this if i had skills with anything except autocad (which is way to big of a PITA to post) your looking at a placement where the cam is pretty heavily contracted and most likely already rotated in the direction you indicate (acutally, opposite of the direction of your arrow) with the 3rd cam pinned against the opposite side of the placement. really most of the (albeit limited) holding power is comming from two of the cams, while the 3rd is preventing it from (immediatly) falling out.
did that make any sense at all?? :x
|
|
|
|
|
euroford
Mar 17, 2006, 10:51 PM
Post #33 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 2913
|
shit, double post.
|
|
|
|
|
rockhoss
Mar 17, 2006, 11:26 PM
Post #34 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2006
Posts: 21
|
aliens are still wayyyy more flexible and thus, more versitile.
|
|
|
|
|
euroford
Mar 18, 2006, 1:36 AM
Post #35 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 2913
|
In reply to: aliens are still wayyyy more flexible and thus, more versitile.
i don't completely agree with that. mostly becouse i think the 'flexability' of a cam is highly overated. i think the more important item, is 'how does the flexing effect the placement'. this is what makes small camalots so very bad as small cams. even though the stem isn't all that flexable, i'll tell you i've seen first hand that under my bodyweight they flex pretty damn easy. the problem is the cable too head interface, they don't flex close to the head so when the stem is bent the head of the cam is sometimes forced into weird angles. this is one of the reasons why zero's are fantastic small cams, just as WC demonstrates in the catalog, you can place the cam in a shallow seam with the head vert. and the stem sticking straight out and you can stand on it without causing the head to rotate. zero's are the best design for this i've seen, camalots are one of the worst, aliens are a good middle ground where 98% of the time they work.
becouse you can fold a cam over in your hand, you think its nice and flexable, but in reality it can have much more resitance as felt by the hand and be equally effective in this regards.
the jury is of course still out on these c3's. looking at the shots in my BD catalog it looks like an improvement over camalots, certainly not as good as zero's.
|
|
|
|
|
jabtocrag
Mar 18, 2006, 3:22 AM
Post #36 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476
|
euro...I tend to agree with you about the flex of a cam!!
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 18, 2006, 8:53 AM
Post #37 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: Glad KAte posted all that - some of it worth discussing... Re: 4 vs 3 cams and crushing rock. I think it's important to state that it's not the # of cams per se so much as the SURFACE AREA the cams have in contact with the rock that matters - this will keep the PSI on the rock lower. In most if not all cases 4 IS better than 3 BUT aliens have narrow cam lobes and both Metolius and BD TCUS lobes look pretty wide - I'd be curious to see what the actual contact area is of these different cams.
Your ignoring the fact that the metal CCH uses in their lobes is much softer than any other companies.
At high loads (loads that would crush rock, and cause a placement failure) the lobes will deform, and you'll have much more surface contact than any other cam.
The downside is Aliens wear faster.
It just occured to me, the Metolius Fat Cams might be as soft, but their not in competition with Aliens.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
clmbr_wex
Mar 18, 2006, 2:50 PM
Post #38 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2003
Posts: 23
|
Kim,
I hope you mean they are rated at 10kN, because if it is seriously only 10N, its not worth buying at all.
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Mar 18, 2006, 4:39 PM
Post #39 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Hey JimDavis: I didn't mean to ignore that, I just didn't realize the implication. And the lobes do deform when you fall super hard, or bounce test super hard, so you're right.
Hi Kim: Yeah, that is true about that placment. But here's the dealio...most of the time, you don't have placments with perfectly paralell sides that just close off in the back that won't fit the fourth lobe of an alien.
The more common problem, is that the crack narrows as you go back, so if you had a smaller lobe at the backside of the cam, you'd get a four lobe placement, not three. Hence hybreds beat C3s...you get four lobes by designing the overall shape of the cam differently, not by eliminating a lobe. (just my opinion, but makes sense to me)
However, if I had to have 3 lobes, I'd rather have a C3, but that case is so rare if you have hybreds (I have hybreds) that I'm not wlling to spend $400 and make my rack heavier in that case. I'll take the dicy cam placement or use a nut.
I have yet to have what I consider a "super dicy" 3 lobe placement in 150+ pitches of easy aid, or one where the falls would be significant if it did blow.
Hence the benefit to "superbadass" climbers, but lack of necessity for the majority of the rest of us.
Ammon and Chris Mac speed climb a3/c4 wihtout hybred aliens or offset nuts. If they can do it...oh, uh, nevermind! ;)
-Kate.
(PS - given that I am a gear whore, don't be surprised to see me in Josh next month with a full set of C3s, feel free to hassle me accordingly!)
|
|
|
|
|
kimgraves
Mar 20, 2006, 5:48 PM
Post #40 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 1186
|
In reply to: Kim, I hope you mean they are rated at 10kN, because if it is seriously only 10N, its not worth buying at all.
Uhm...yep. :lol:
Kim
|
|
|
|
|
crackers
Mar 20, 2006, 6:23 PM
Post #42 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 416
|
Two questions for kim: horizontal or vertical cracks? aid or free?
I've come to prefer 4CUs for free pro on horizontal cracks when I can orient the cam such that the two lobes are pointed up and the one lobe is pointed up. Noto bene, this preference refers to small gear in really hard rock. If I can not pick the orientation of the lobes, I go with a similar size 3CU. For example, to protect the crux move of the 11a variant of frustration syndrome in the gunks, you can not pick which way to orient the lobes. If you used an alien, you'd have two lobes down, one lobe up. A 00 3CU's middle lobe fits nicely in the divot. Examples of when I would use a 4CU generally boil down to "because i used my f*&^% offset already".
I've never worried about the chirality of placements in vertical cracks, and never really had a problem aiding.
YMMV, and your fear quotient may vary as well.
|
|
|
|
|
mattm
Mar 20, 2006, 6:39 PM
Post #43 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
In reply to: In reply to: Glad KAte posted all that - some of it worth discussing... Re: 4 vs 3 cams and crushing rock. I think it's important to state that it's not the # of cams per se so much as the SURFACE AREA the cams have in contact with the rock that matters - this will keep the PSI on the rock lower. In most if not all cases 4 IS better than 3 BUT aliens have narrow cam lobes and both Metolius and BD TCUS lobes look pretty wide - I'd be curious to see what the actual contact area is of these different cams. Your ignoring the fact that the metal CCH uses in their lobes is much softer than any other companies. At high loads (loads that would crush rock, and cause a placement failure) the lobes will deform, and you'll have much more surface contact than any other cam. The downside is Aliens wear faster. It just occured to me, the Metolius Fat Cams might be as soft, but their not in competition with Aliens. Jim
Have to disagree here - If the loads are so high that we're crushing the rock the cams will track out before they start to deform. If the start to deform, yes they may "widen" a little but more importantly, as they deform they'll loose the important cam angle and "flatten" or shear at the point of contact = resulting in a less solid placement. I believe the reason Aliens use the softer metal is so they deform a LITTLE in hard rock placements (granite) - the small deformity helps with grip against the crack edges. I believe Metolius uses the 6061 (in lieu of the 7075) mainly because the 6061 is less expensive and since there's a lot more metal in those Fat Cams it's cost prohibitive to use the 7075 (harder). Also, the 7075 and it's durability isn't as needed since the fat cams will likely not see a lot of use in hard stone.
From Metolius Website "The rock strength accounts for what is probably the most common mode of failure [in] in the real world. Even in very hard rock types, it is not uncommon for the surface layer of rock to pulverize under the force of the cams, forming a loose layer (like ball bearings) which allows the cam to pull out. Wide cam faces spread the load out and greatly reduce the chance of breaking the rock on the walls of the placement."
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Mar 20, 2006, 8:35 PM
Post #44 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
mattm,
You seem to be in agreement with Jimdavis.
Maybe you can reread the post with this in mind:
In reply to: From Metolius Website "...it is not uncommon for the surface layer of rock to pulverize under the force of the cams, forming a loose layer (like ball bearings) which allows the cam to pull out...."
Also:
In reply to: the small deformity helps with grip against the crack edges
In reply to: At high loads the lobes will deform, and you'll have much more surface contact than any other cam.
Please let me know if I missed where your disagreement is coming from. I can't find it.
Sorry if my partial quotes out of context lose meaning. I was trying to highlight the important aspects.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crimpstrength
Mar 20, 2006, 10:23 PM
Post #46 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 285
|
giza
thanks for the pictures. They don't wet my appetite though. I just don't see myself getting more than one; only getting one to say I have one.
|
|
|
|
|
mattm
Mar 20, 2006, 10:43 PM
Post #47 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
In reply to: mattm, You seem to be in agreement with Jimdavis. Maybe you can reread the post with this in mind: In reply to: From Metolius Website "...it is not uncommon for the surface layer of rock to pulverize under the force of the cams, forming a loose layer (like ball bearings) which allows the cam to pull out...." That loose layer of rock would have to come from some crushing forces to the rock. Also: In reply to: the small deformity helps with grip against the crack edges agrees with Jim's statement of: In reply to: At high loads the lobes will deform, and you'll have much more surface contact than any other cam. Please let me know if I missed where your disagreement is coming from. I can't find it. Sorry if my partial quotes out of context lose meaning. I was trying to highlight the important aspects. Dan
Jim's post implies that the alien cams deform enough to INCREASE the surface area of the cam and thus lessen the PSI on the rock - increasing the likely hood the piece will hold.
I'm saying that for the cams to deform THAT MUCH (increasing surface area enough to effect the cam pressure on the rock) a soft rock placement will have already pulverized and started to fail. When I talk about small deformity I mean tiny dimples that grip the rock crystals (on hard rock) nothing dramatic enough to increase overall surface area in any meaningful way
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Mar 20, 2006, 11:30 PM
Post #48 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
ok, I still think your effect would be 'large' in that the deforming will create some surfaces directly opposing the motion on those small dimples. Since our terms are relative (large vs small) we probably are just not using the same relative scale. Therefore, we just won't agree because of our scales.
Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Mar 20, 2006, 11:56 PM
Post #49 of 59
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Microbarn. Obviousy a person with scale-related issues. ;)
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Mar 21, 2006, 5:31 AM
Post #50 of 59
(5461 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: mattm, You seem to be in agreement with Jimdavis. Maybe you can reread the post with this in mind: In reply to: From Metolius Website "...it is not uncommon for the surface layer of rock to pulverize under the force of the cams, forming a loose layer (like ball bearings) which allows the cam to pull out...." That loose layer of rock would have to come from some crushing forces to the rock. Also: In reply to: the small deformity helps with grip against the crack edges agrees with Jim's statement of: In reply to: At high loads the lobes will deform, and you'll have much more surface contact than any other cam. Please let me know if I missed where your disagreement is coming from. I can't find it. Sorry if my partial quotes out of context lose meaning. I was trying to highlight the important aspects. Dan Jim's post implies that the alien cams deform enough to INCREASE the surface area of the cam and thus lessen the PSI on the rock - increasing the likely hood the piece will hold. I'm saying that for the cams to deform THAT MUCH (increasing surface area enough to effect the cam pressure on the rock) a soft rock placement will have already pulverized and started to fail. When I talk about small deformity I mean tiny dimples that grip the rock crystals (on hard rock) nothing dramatic enough to increase overall surface area in any meaningful way
Well, if you consider that a line (the side of a crack) is only tangent to a circle (the cam lobe) at one point...there isn't much surface area to begin with. If you get a cam lobe to encase a little crystal or smash itself into a divot...you can increase the surface contact of the cam A LOT.
I don't see where your going with the shearing, flattening, etc. The cam with take on the shape of the rock it contacts (with enough force), then you essentially have a perfect fit for that spot.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
