|
heelhook
Jan 28, 2007, 3:40 PM
Post #1 of 21
(2442 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 1, 2007
Posts: 26
|
<edited because I misspelled pressure and felt like an idiot>
How much outward force do tricams generate? Enough to cause flakes to pop off?
I know SLCDs generate double the downward force on each side of the placement so I don't place them behind sketchy flakes.
The geometry of tricams makes me think(based on HS physics 5 years ago) that they would generate some pretty big outward forces.
I never thought about it until this morning. I was about 15' above a pink one behind a slightly hollow flake yesterday(it was all I could get). If I had fallen and it had pulled I would have decked from like 45 feet. Which, needless to say, would have sucked.
Someone appease my fears. I love those little guys.
(This post was edited by heelhook on Jan 29, 2007, 2:53 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Jan 28, 2007, 3:50 PM
Post #2 of 21
(2432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
well I'm no physisist but they definitely generate significant outward forces when placed in camming mode. I've placed them behind hollow flakes, but realize that in that situation it's mostly psycological pro. If you are going to use them in camming mode, I treat them like cam placements and don't trust them if the rock isn't good.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jan 28, 2007, 3:54 PM
Post #3 of 21
(2431 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
nuts, cams and tricams all exert really large outward forces on the walls of their placements.
placing any of the above could be enough to break flakes off. You have to decide about every position and every flake. Sometimes they will hold a small whipper, and sometimes it is better to not waste the energy.
|
|
|
|
|
boku
Jan 28, 2007, 4:35 PM
Post #4 of 21
(2404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
heelhook wrote: ...I know SLCDs generate double the downward force on each side of the placement...
Sine and cosine being what they are, SLCDs actually apply outward forces of about four times the downward pull.
|
|
|
|
|
cliffhucker2
Jan 28, 2007, 5:50 PM
Post #5 of 21
(2355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 28
|
I hear a load of good stuff about tricams, but my personal experience wwith them leads me to beleive they arn't quite what they're cracked up to be. To get a decent placement you have to have some pretty tough rough roch, otherwise, if its slick like Basalt, it'll just slip out. This leads me to beleive that they DON'T have the same outward forces that a cam does, or else the'd hold BETTER.
This is probably due to the smooth nature of the tricams, but when its smooth on smooth, its just doesn't seem that great. Mabe its just me though, anyone else have better experience with them |
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 28, 2007, 7:04 PM
Post #6 of 21
(2307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
heelhook wrote: How much outward force do tricams generate? Enough to cause flakes to pop off? I know SLCDs generate double the downward force on each side of the placement so I don't place them behind sketchy flakes...
Actually, the outward force generated by SLCDs and Tricams is determined by their cam angle. The smaller the cam angle the greater the outward force--at the sacrifice of working range. In that respect they are not fundamentally different from a nut. A stopper with a smaller taper will exert a greater outward force, but will also have a smaller useful range.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Jan 28, 2007, 7:58 PM
Post #7 of 21
(2269 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
cliffhucker2 wrote: I hear a load of good stuff about tricams, but my personal experience wwith them leads me to beleive they arn't quite what they're cracked up to be. To get a decent placement you have to have some pretty tough rough roch, otherwise, if its slick like Basalt, it'll just slip out. This leads me to beleive that they DON'T have the same outward forces that a cam does, or else the'd hold BETTER. This is probably due to the smooth nature of the tricams, but when its smooth on smooth, its just doesn't seem that great. Mabe its just me though, anyone else have better experience with them
Might just be that you need some more practice placing them, and I don't mean that offensively, but they are kind of tricky to place securely, and in camming mode you typically have to set the piece as well after it's placed. Something being smooth doesn't necessarily mean that it holds worse, a number of small cams have smooth (no ridges) lobes because it actually increases their holding power (more surface area, etc.)
To the OP, like others have said, if your placing anything behind hollow flakes or anything not super solid, you always have to be worried about it, doesn't matter what sort of gear your using.
(This post was edited by musicman1586 on Jan 28, 2007, 8:09 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jeremy11
Jan 28, 2007, 10:21 PM
Post #8 of 21
(2204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 597
|
http://www.swarpa.net/...imb/sinkthepink.html
fragile flakes are always scary 
they are supposedly better than cams in icy, dirty, mossy, and wet cracks.
tricams do not have a constant cam angle like SLCD's so the outward force would be different across its range. but I normally place tricams pretty tight anyway since they are more secure.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 29, 2007, 12:59 AM
Post #9 of 21
(2132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
As with Abalakov cams, the curved surface of a tricam is indeed a section of a logarithmic sprial. BTW, that is another way of saying "you're wrong."
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Jan 29, 2007, 2:12 AM
Post #10 of 21
(2088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
cliffhucker2 wrote: I hear a load of good stuff about tricams, but my personal experience wwith them leads me to beleive they arn't quite what they're cracked up to be. To get a decent placement you have to have some pretty tough rough roch, otherwise, if its slick like Basalt, it'll just slip out. This leads me to beleive that they DON'T have the same outward forces that a cam does, or else the'd hold BETTER. This is probably due to the smooth nature of the tricams, but when its smooth on smooth, its just doesn't seem that great. Mabe its just me though, anyone else have better experience with them I find it to be quite the oposite. I've placed tri-cams in some pretty sketchy places and had them hold. Took a whipper off the crux of Illusion Dweller last year on to a Brown (1.5) tricam and it held just fine in a slick pocket. (For those who have done that climb, it's just before the crux and takes a 1.5 tricam just swell!) hosh.
|
|
|
|
|
heelhook
Jan 29, 2007, 2:13 AM
Post #11 of 21
(2087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 1, 2007
Posts: 26
|
Edited because I missed curts post about tricams and the logarithmic spiral.
Seriously? They are a section of a log spiral?
It doesn't look like it to me but I am willing to defer to your greater knowledge/experience
Thanks to everyone who cleared this up for me. Didn't make me happier about sketchy flakes but what will?
(This post was edited by heelhook on Jan 29, 2007, 2:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jeremy11
Jan 29, 2007, 3:19 AM
Post #12 of 21
(2045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 597
|
what about this (quoting Maldaly, bold is mine)??
In reply to: Gang, Be very, very careful of using the cam angle as a major determining factor for chosing a cam brand. Just as important is the choice of material for the cam lobes and the tooth profile. What matters is how well the cam works and I think that just about everything availble now works pretty well. The oldest still available cam, the Lowe/CAMP Tricam has varying cam angles: they start at 13 degrees and proceed up to 17 degrees out at the tips of the cam. Damn things work pretty well, too. Anyone or any company who says xx.xx degree is the ultimate cam angle has a lot of explaining to do. Mal
|
|
|
|
|
heelhook
Jan 29, 2007, 4:00 AM
Post #13 of 21
(2018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 1, 2007
Posts: 26
|
This is just my observation and a rough one at that but I took a #2 tricam and compared it to a C4 and the lobes on the camalot were almost identically shaped to the rails on the tricam which leads me to believe that they are in fact constant angle.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jan 29, 2007, 4:37 AM
Post #14 of 21
(2000 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
heelhook wrote: Edited because I missed curts post about tricams and the logarithmic spiral. Seriously? They are a section of a log spiral? It doesn't look like it to me but I am willing to defer to your greater knowledge/experience Thanks to everyone who cleared this up for me. Didn't make me happier about sketchy flakes but what will?
hehe not putting gear behind them would be a good start :)
cam angle article
http://www.bigwalls.net/climb/camf/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 29, 2007, 5:33 AM
Post #15 of 21
(1978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jeremy11 wrote: what about this (quoting Maldaly, bold is mine)?? In reply to: Gang, Be very, very careful of using the cam angle as a major determining factor for chosing a cam brand. Just as important is the choice of material for the cam lobes and the tooth profile. What matters is how well the cam works and I think that just about everything availble now works pretty well. The oldest still available cam, the Lowe/CAMP Tricam has varying cam angles: they start at 13 degrees and proceed up to 17 degrees out at the tips of the cam. Damn things work pretty well, too. Anyone or any company who says xx.xx degree is the ultimate cam angle has a lot of explaining to do. Mal here is the link to that thread: http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
I have the utmost respect for Mal, but I suspect he may be incorrect. I have seen the mathematical formulas for Abalakov cams--and I believe Tricams are of the same design--and have a constant cam angle. I might believe that the cam angle is slightly different for various size tricams (perhaps within the range Mal has posted) but I still believe the angle is constant for each individual cam. If that is not the case, I think the design is somewhat sub-optimal.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
cliffhucker2
Jan 30, 2007, 12:14 AM
Post #16 of 21
(1868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 28
|
Sounds like I need a lesson or two ..... or three on placing pro. i'm definatly not an expert on anything, I just made some random placements and they didn't seem to hold as good as the cams I placed in the same cracks.
Obviously they would work better if the stinger is placed above a feature, I wasn't exactly doing that, if yall have any tips I'd be gratefull to hear em.
|
|
|
|
|
heelhook
Jan 30, 2007, 1:26 AM
Post #17 of 21
(1829 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 1, 2007
Posts: 26
|
I try to get the fulcrum on or in some sort of feature(crystal, divot, crack, nub) and then get the rails to both lie in contact with the rock, give her a slight tug, clip up and forget about her till I hear my second bitch.
Sometimes it can be kind of tough to get them stable, especially the bigger ones. Try a pink or a red one first, I have found them to be pretty dummy proof. Well except to clean but thats not my problem as long as I am the one placing them.
|
|
|
|
|
rockitfuse
Jan 30, 2007, 1:44 AM
Post #18 of 21
(1823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 10, 2005
Posts: 53
|
Tricams - love them. Pink one in a hueco on Raven (WY) saved me from decking from about 35'. They work where NOTHING else will. They can be a bit dicey on hard, smooth w/ few/no rugosities, but if crystalline or usual rock, they work! Set them with a tug and remember what sequence you use to place them. I never go anywhere without the Valentine set: pink & red. They are great! CA y OR friends are sold - call them 'mice'!
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Jan 30, 2007, 12:52 PM
Post #19 of 21
(1794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
i agree with all - and they can be diffiicult to place and remove but i love them! if you can set up an oposition piece to keep ah little pressure on um.
|
|
|
|
|
deadhorse
Feb 5, 2007, 9:28 PM
Post #20 of 21
(1678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 241
|
maaan... after all this praise I've got to go out and pick up a few tricams.
I was under the (uneducated) impression that they were supposed to be placed pretty tight, but was told by a trad guide that they hold best when you can rotate them a good bit to set them. any thoughts? oh yeah, and what do you guys think, but the set of 4, or double up on the smaller two?
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Feb 5, 2007, 9:38 PM
Post #21 of 21
(1663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
deadhorse wrote: maaan... after all this praise I've got to go out and pick up a few tricams. I was under the (uneducated) impression that they were supposed to be placed pretty tight, but was told by a trad guide that they hold best when you can rotate them a good bit to set them. any thoughts? oh yeah, and what do you guys think, but the set of 4, or double up on the smaller two?
DH, the most used are the first four sizes (.5,1,1.5,2). I started with the 1 and 1.5 then got the .5 and 2 and have since doubled up on the .5
If you like em you'll get rarely ever leave the ground without a few. Grab the four pack is my vote on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
