|
caughtinside
Mar 9, 2010, 6:44 PM
Post #2 of 67
(17798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
They probably didn't sell, so they stopped making them? I think I only ever saw 2 outside gear shops.
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Mar 9, 2010, 7:00 PM
Post #3 of 67
(17761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
I was under the assumption that they had issues with the company that manufactured the cams for them and were looking for a different vendor. Hopefully Maldaly chimes in.
Amazing pieces regardless.
(This post was edited by suprasoup on Mar 9, 2010, 7:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Mar 9, 2010, 7:04 PM
Post #4 of 67
(17752 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
Mal,
Where are ya? Can you shed some light on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
mrtristan
Mar 9, 2010, 7:13 PM
Post #5 of 67
(17729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 596
|
caughtinside wrote: They probably didn't sell, so they stopped making them? I think I only ever saw 2 outside gear shops.
I've actually never seen them in person, either in gear shops or on someone's rack...
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Mar 9, 2010, 7:43 PM
Post #6 of 67
(17679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
I've got two. They never actually delivered on the 2:1 expansion ratio. The range is just a hair larger than the C4s. Maybe if you push on the lobes with your hand you could manipulate it into 2:1, but not by pulling on the triggers.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Mar 9, 2010, 8:14 PM
Post #7 of 67
(17649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
Hey gang,
Not on the road trip yet so here's the answer. The MaxCams were in need of a re-design of the trigger mechanism. Because of the differing cam lobelengths they would tend to flip as they walked into a smooth crack, especially if they were extended more than half way. Alpine granite, Eldo and Red Rocks weren't so bad. It doesn't matter that everyone knows, and all the manufacturers instruct, that you shouldn't place a cam with the lobes expanded more than half way, the visual impact of cam lobes flipping as the unit walked back into a crack was powerful. I didn't seem to matter either that everyone knows, and manufacturers instruct, that you should prevent cams from walking at all costs. Some people could deal with it some couldn't and climbing follows politics in that the vocal minority wins every time. Sales suffered.
Whatever. Enough history. What we need to invent, and what we haven't been able to, is an elegant, intuitive, lightweight and durable triggering mechanism that keeps the cams in roughly symmetrical opposition to each other.
Let's crowd source this. Any ideas?
Climb safe,
Mal
PS: Rudmin, get out your calipers. I have a #2 in front of me and, at max expansion, my calipers read 65.41mm. At max trigger retraction (No I'm not squeezing the cams together) 33.18 mm. That's pretty damn close to 2:1 if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
possum2082
Mar 9, 2010, 8:33 PM
Post #8 of 67
(17617 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2008
Posts: 218
|
thanks, mal.
i've had a set for a season now and am very happy with them. kudos to whoever numbered and colored them as they integrate seemlessly with my c4's.
on a side note, i was climbing a few years ago (back when i only had 2 sets of flex cams) and was giving my buddy gear beta, "you'll probably need doubles in fours, fives, and sixes." soneone overheard and asked, "you've got doubles in fours, fives, and sixes?" i frowned and said, "yeah." he walked away with a funny look on his face.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Mar 9, 2010, 8:42 PM
Post #9 of 67
(17596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
LOL! I started trying to get manufacturers to coordinate cam colors back in 1992 but couldn't get any cooperation. Once the Camalots became the defacto color standard though, it got easier. Remember when WC sizes were the standard. #2 was the size from hell and a #3 crack was bliss.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 9, 2010, 8:50 PM
Post #10 of 67
(17579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
What about changing the trigger wire to a cord or thin wire which has a mini pulley (or just a bar if you can get it to low enough friction) at the trigger side instead of a solid termination? If I'm thinking right (and that's a pretty big if), the tensions should be such that the mini lobe will move at a different rate than the big one and possibly achieve the desired smooth, even pull.
If that actually works, I demand samples.
Edited to add: this is actually incredibly simple to test, since you can basically just try to do this by just modifying the trigger. Too bad I don't have one of them in my hands right now. . .
(This post was edited by shoo on Mar 9, 2010, 9:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 9, 2010, 8:52 PM
Post #11 of 67
(17576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
maldaly wrote: LOL! I started trying to get manufacturers to coordinate cam colors back in 1992 but couldn't get any cooperation.
Kudos for trying that, Mal, but I can see where it was doomed from the start. Wouldn't everything be much simpler if manufacturers could standardize?
I mean, suppose that a Petzl screw from someone's ice tool could be shared with a partner who just dropped one from their Grivel?
Suppose climbers could look down on any cam on their rack and pick out the right size, regardless of manufacturer, to plug in based on color.
Maybe a certain thread and diameter of a crampon bolt could be recognized as the best, and then every manufacturer could utilize those so that your partner is almost guaranteed to be able to bail you out?
I understand the politics behind this not happening, but wouldn't it be nice?
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Mar 9, 2010, 8:54 PM
Post #12 of 67
(17571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
shoo, thanks for the idea but it's not the smoothness of the pull that was a problem. They pull pretty well. It's that once you let go and they start moving around in the crack the long lobe compresses and the short lobe expands. The spring balance is really complicated and our thought was to try to control the lobe's relationship through a captive trigger of some kind.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 9, 2010, 8:57 PM
Post #13 of 67
(17565 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
maldaly wrote: shoo, thanks for the idea but it's not the smoothness of the pull that was a problem. They pull pretty well. It's that once you let go and they start moving around in the crack the long lobe compresses and the short lobe expands. The spring balance is really complicated and our thought was to try to control the lobe's relationship through a captive trigger of some kind.
Right, I'm saying the smoothness of the pull on the pulley side for my trigger pulley idea, or the amount of friction between the trigger wire and the trigger pulley.
Don't worry, the ladies tell me all your gear is super smooth.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Mar 9, 2010, 9:31 PM
Post #14 of 67
(17518 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
I have one and I really like it. It's my favorite piece aside from ballnutz.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Mar 9, 2010, 9:33 PM
Post #15 of 67
(17511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Mar 9, 2010, 10:11 PM
Post #16 of 67
(17448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
Yeah... it's the spring.
Mal
PS: It was moonshine
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Mar 10, 2010, 1:54 AM
Post #17 of 67
(17330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
Mal,
I love these cams, and use my #3 and #.75 all the time. My current idea is that because of this:
maldaly wrote: they would tend to flip as they walked into a smooth crack, especially if they were extended more than half way. Alpine granite, Eldo and Red Rocks weren't so bad. Let's crowd source this. Any ideas?
I avoid placing them in smooth cracks and usually just place them in undulating, irregular cracks.
Have you tried a trigger that is designed similarly to the OP cams? That could work, but it may do nothing. Another idea might be to design a secondary set of springs.....along the second axis. I'm no physics geek, so I know I phrased this poorly.
What I mean is that the second axis has the small lobes, right? What if those lobes specifically had extra resistance, via an extra set of low resistance springs?
Anyway, keep up the good work, I have to get back to studying endocrine problems....woo.
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Mar 10, 2010, 6:37 AM
Post #18 of 67
(17266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
In reply to: PS: It was moonshine
Was it the Puerto Rican with the raisins and that weird potato/apple? Man that stuff is potent!
Double set. Love 'em. The #3 just kicks ass.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 10, 2010, 3:56 PM
Post #19 of 67
(17191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
irregularpanda wrote: Have you tried a trigger that is designed similarly to the OP cams? That could work, but it may do nothing. Another idea might be to design a secondary set of springs.....along the second axis. I'm no physics geek, so I know I phrased this poorly.
That won't do anything to alleviate the issue. The whole "issue" is trying to get the lobes to move at different rates. OP's design increases the rate at which the lobes pull, but it does so evenly.
One other possible idea is to offset the wire attachment to the trigger in relation to the the stem. That would achieve different pull rates, though how much you would have to offset them is an open question. Think similar to OP's trigger design, except the trigger wires attach to the same offset points, rather than ones on opposite sides of the stem.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Mar 10, 2010, 4:26 PM
Post #20 of 67
(17166 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
glahhg
Mar 10, 2010, 4:30 PM
Post #21 of 67
(17159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2003
Posts: 69
|
Even though you're not officially supposed to use the outer half of expansion ranges of cams, BD camalots will still work that way. They'll walk and move, but still hold a fall, while the maxcams will invert and fall out of the crack. I don't think that's a vocal minority screwing things up, I think it's one device working in an extreme situation (which happens quite often) and the other failing. For the same price and weight and expansion range, I'll take the one that works.
As far as a redesign, seems to me the way to go is to have the device actually be symmetrical. Floating axles in a symmetrical device is something I want to see.
But I hope you guys come up with something for the max cam.
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Mar 10, 2010, 4:52 PM
Post #22 of 67
(17136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
adatesman wrote: I suspect that the solution is to move the attachment point of the spring on one of the lobes such that the torque applied through the effective levers is in balance (lever * torque), but I haven't actually tried it since this cam came off my rack and I'd rather not cut it apart (well, further than I already have... ). I also don't know if the balance point remains constant throughout the expansion of the lobes, but it would be easy enough to figure out if you know the equation for the profile of the lobes. Of course, I could be totally out in left field on all of this...  Time to check on my parts and hopefully toss them in the anodizer....
Nice picture. I suspect that torsion springs wouldn't work the way you propose. Torque is torque no matter where you apply it. Extending one arm further out would lower the force on that arm and give the exact same torque.
My proposal would be to add some sort of cam stop against the relative stem and inner lobe rotation.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Mar 10, 2010, 5:38 PM
Post #23 of 67
(17093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Mar 10, 2010, 6:02 PM
Post #24 of 67
(16582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
adatesman wrote: I'd be inclined to disagree with that... Torque is force at a applied at a distance, so by definition is dependent on where the force is applied. The resulting force of one lobe acting one end of the spring must be equal to the resulting force of the other lobe acting on the other end of the spring, but other than that you're free to apply the forces wherever you like. Classic example is a teeter-totter... it still works with a kid on one end and an adult on the other, provided that you offset the fulcrum.
You are talking about a linear spring, not a torsion spring. In this case, the torsion spring only applies an equal and opposite torque to each lobe. No matter where it is attached, it applies the same torque. The equal and opposite force couple is between the spring point of contact and the axle, not lobe to lobe.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Mar 10, 2010, 6:30 PM
Post #25 of 67
(16568 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
