|
semaj
Jan 13, 2009, 5:35 AM
Post #51 of 190
(13643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2006
Posts: 3
|
Innovation... does this have to be a completely new design to qualify for the bonus points? Or a partial new design (such as different trigger mechanism or lobes)? Or even just a completely new material used in the place of alum with an existing design?
Is it acceptable to machine a mold but then manufacture the load-bearing parts by hand? Does that still qualify for the hand tools bonus points?
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
semaj
Jan 13, 2009, 5:41 AM
Post #52 of 190
(13640 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2006
Posts: 3
|
What alum is typically used for commercial cams?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 13, 2009, 9:20 PM
Post #53 of 190
(13559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
northfacejmb
Jan 14, 2009, 7:07 AM
Post #54 of 190
(13502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 234
|
What about Big Bro type designs? Are they allowed as well?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 14, 2009, 3:41 PM
Post #55 of 190
(13479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
bhickey
Jan 14, 2009, 7:12 PM
Post #56 of 190
(13446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 46
|
Does welding fall under "hand tools"?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 15, 2009, 3:08 AM
Post #57 of 190
(13408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bivs
Jan 15, 2009, 3:42 PM
Post #58 of 190
(13367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2009
Posts: 2
|
WAS THAT A FLAKE BLOWING OUT OR MY PARTY POPPERS?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 15, 2009, 4:57 PM
Post #59 of 190
(13349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
bhickey
Jan 15, 2009, 9:34 PM
Post #60 of 190
(13321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 46
|
adatesman wrote: Expansion Ratio is calculated by the min and max sizes possible with the device but Range is calculated by the min and max sizes possible through action of the device after placement.
I think your proposed calculation for Range is a bit silly. When has this thought crossed your mind: "If I bust out this hollow flake by a few millimeters, my cam will still hold"?
Edit: Changed the title, 'cause bros aren't chocks
(This post was edited by bhickey on Jan 16, 2009, 12:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 15, 2009, 11:46 PM
Post #61 of 190
(13307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 16, 2009, 6:54 PM
Post #62 of 190
(13258 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Jan 16, 2009, 7:26 PM
Post #63 of 190
(13244 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
adatesman wrote: Hey Everybody, Any ideas yet on another way to handle the Big Bro scoring issue? I'd like this ironed out today, so unless I hear some other ideas floated we'll be going with what I proposed above. -a.
You could score for the amount of time needed to place the device... Cams place rather quickly, just letting them expand in the crack, but it would take longer to set a big bro. Plug and chug vs. Fiddle with it. (Probably the reason why cams are still prefered on most racks as well) Just a thought
j-
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 16, 2009, 7:42 PM
Post #64 of 190
(13234 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Jan 16, 2009, 7:44 PM
Post #65 of 190
(13232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
Limit the overall size, saying it can't be any larger than a #4 BD Cam... I.E. No more massive big bro's
j-
|
|
|
|
|
hoffy
Jan 16, 2009, 8:42 PM
Post #66 of 190
(13219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2009
Posts: 7
|
so the competition is about protecting flaring cracks now? it really seems like you want to hamstring bb-style designs.
i thought this was about building something that worked - from scratch and on the cheap. if someone comes up with a cool bb that will hold 25kN and costs $10 to make, what's the harm in letting it compete on a level playing field with "conventional" cams?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 16, 2009, 9:12 PM
Post #67 of 190
(13213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
hoffy
Jan 16, 2009, 9:32 PM
Post #68 of 190
(14590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2009
Posts: 7
|
i am in agreement with a previous poster - just limit the max size or add a usability rating.
your range talk seems valid when the safe moving flake (kind of an oxymoron) argument is considered, but this seems to neglect the terror of walking slcds. by this argument, a big bro design isn't prone to walking so it should be given extra marks there. basically, the range thing seems to me like more of something that everyone who has every placed a cam has learned to live with and not necessarily something they are glad is part of the design.
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Jan 16, 2009, 11:11 PM
Post #69 of 190
(14567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
Despite initially rooting for BB-esque designs to be allowed, I've changed my mind. When it comes down to it, they're really not active devices in they sense that they don't have any action of their own. The fact is, once a big bro is set to the size you want, it just sits there like any other nut. If we allowed big bros, we'd have to allow stacked nuts and other high-range passive devices. But this comp isn't about passive, it's about active. (Though realistically, if we were to hold a passive comp I don't think BB should be allowed either, due to their absurd range. BB is in a class of it's own.)
My vote goes towards not allowing brig bro type devices. This will also allow us to keep multi-piece siesmo-like devices in the running. I liked the idea of having the high range of multiple pieces, but the cost of the weight. I think there' s a lot to be explored in that area, so it shouldn't be ruled out.
(p.s. I'm not biased towards siesmo-like deivces anymore, as my design no longer uses multiple pieces)
|
|
|
|
|
hoffy
Jan 16, 2009, 11:35 PM
Post #70 of 190
(14559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2009
Posts: 7
|
what does it mean to have action of their own?
in the sense that an slcd has the ability to reset itself once it is placed, you can call it active. i ask you this though, if you had the choice of an slcd placement which would guarantee an immovable (until mechanical failure of course), multi-directional placement or one in which the slcd could walk, which would you choose?
from what is already posted, if the size is limited to something like a #4 camalot, the bb designs shouldn't even fair that well. let them in.
in the end there is a reason why people choose slcds over bb and let that be borne out in the scoring - set a limit on size and factor in usability. this talk of range and "active vs. passive" gets into a gray area that will potentially rule out new and novel things.
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Jan 16, 2009, 11:52 PM
Post #71 of 190
(14551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
hoffy wrote: what does it mean to have action of their own?
It means they exert a force on the rock. In cams this is done via springs which push the lobes against the rock. A BB, although it has a spring, doesn't push against the rock after it's set.
hoffy wrote: in the sense that an slcd has the ability to reset itself once it is placed, you can call it active. i ask you this though, if you had the choice of an slcd placement which would guarantee an immovable (until mechanical failure of course), multi-directional placement or one in which the slcd could walk, which would you choose?
hoffy wrote: this talk of range and "active vs. passive" gets into a gray area that will potentially rule out new and novel things.
I don't like it either, but we've gotta draw lines somewhere. I'd vote make whatever you like, but know that it may not be eligible. But send it for testing anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 16, 2009, 11:53 PM
Post #72 of 190
(14551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
hoffy
Jan 17, 2009, 12:08 AM
Post #73 of 190
(14552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2009
Posts: 7
|
the spring in a big bro effectively does the same thing that the small springs on each of the cam lobes do. the collar on the shaft of the big bro only resists compression loads, the spring in the cylinder of a bb always pushes the ends into contact with the walls of the crack it is placed in. it is the linear analog of the slcd.
i am working on a bb hybrid as well. i totally believe that a homemade cam can and will be made by a bunch of other people (more power to them), i'd just like to see how my design would stack up.
thanks for your continued consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
bhickey
Jan 17, 2009, 12:29 AM
Post #74 of 190
(14549 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 46
|
adatesman wrote: To my knowledge only one other person is considering a BB clone and I just dropped him a PM to get him over here so we can finish sorting things out. Last I heard he hadn't yet ordered material, but that was 2 days ago and I'd hate for him to be stuck with it because of the rules changing (probably wasn't cheap). So hopefully he hasn't gotten that far yet and we'll be able to change this painlessly.
The size of the testing rig limits extreme weight/range optimizations that you could get out of an oversized bro. Moreover, given the rig design, bros might face some serious stability problems. If my entry is within spitting distance of winning, the rest of you have screwed up badly.
Edit: Ordered metal on Wednesday.
(This post was edited by bhickey on Jan 17, 2009, 6:44 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 17, 2009, 1:58 PM
Post #75 of 190
(14520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
