|
data118
Nov 9, 2003, 6:49 PM
Post #1 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 845
|
Great idea. I actuaclly thought about something like tghis before, marking up the cams.
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Nov 9, 2003, 9:05 PM
Post #2 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
link?
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Nov 9, 2003, 9:11 PM
Post #3 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
i can't get their site to work now, what are they?
|
|
|
|
|
nikdemeis
Nov 9, 2003, 10:11 PM
Post #4 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2003
Posts: 95
|
All i saw was a real brief thing on the web about them not much detail do you have anymore info on them?
|
|
|
|
|
vram1974
Nov 9, 2003, 10:19 PM
Post #5 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2003
Posts: 113
|
It's making trad climbing more accessible and idiot-proof... hell, it's a damn good idea for the sketchy beginner placements.
I met the guy who invented the idea last month by chance. He lives and guides in North Conway, NH.
|
|
|
|
|
vram1974
Nov 9, 2003, 10:23 PM
Post #6 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2003
Posts: 113
|
Oh, for those asking what they are, it's simple:
There are three markings on the inner camheads. You will see green if the cams are optimally placed, yellow if it's sketchy, or full-on red if you are placing a really bad cam.
I'm a little bit on the fence about the universal application of it, because we all know that the cam range in limestone and granite are as different as night and day. A yellow range placement in granite is probably gonna fail in limestone.
|
|
|
|
|
scclimber
Nov 9, 2003, 10:50 PM
Post #7 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2003
Posts: 159
|
In reply to: It's making trad climbing more accessible and idiot-proof... hell, it's a damn good idea for the sketchy beginner placements.
just because you have the right size cam doesn't mean it is a great placement, does it?
|
|
|
|
|
tanner
Nov 10, 2003, 12:01 AM
Post #8 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2002
Posts: 491
|
I think the Idea of trying to make trad climbing safer this way is only giving people a false sense of securaty. Learn to place cams from an experiance person and your good to.
|
|
|
|
|
adamtd
Nov 10, 2003, 3:46 AM
Post #10 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 187
|
It's a great idea, and an excellent teaching tool. I would say that by the time someone is leading on pro though, they should know how to assess their cam placements without the colored dots. Plus, if you practice enough, you can grab the right piece the first time, everytime. I say just practice instead of relying on paint that'll probably scratch off anyway. As I said, It is a great teaching tool if you're teaching beginners.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 10, 2003, 12:33 PM
Post #11 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
It looks to me like Metolius thinks you can't Over-Cam those...the green dots go all the way back on those cam lobes.
Am I the only one to notice this?
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Nov 10, 2003, 12:57 PM
Post #12 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
no i thought of that but they're worried about safety, not losing a cam...
|
|
|
|
|
data118
Nov 10, 2003, 2:32 PM
Post #13 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 845
|
In reply to: It looks to me like Metolius thinks you can't Over-Cam those...the green dots go all the way back on those cam lobes. Am I the only one to notice this? Jim
Yes, the cam in the picture is obvisouly over cammed (the red dots on both lobes are in contact and the green dots on both lobes do not over lap). Without reading the instructions, I think the "ideal range" is in the green, i.e., the green dots on the front-left lobe overlaps the green dots on the right lobe. When the green dots on the left front left lobe overlaps the yellow dots on th eright lobe, it is slighlt out of "ideal" range.
You following me?
|
|
|
|
|
data118
Nov 10, 2003, 2:33 PM
Post #14 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 845
|
In reply to: no i thought of that but they're worried about safety, not losing a cam...
Over cammed units can pop out just as easily.
|
|
|
|
|
ramylson
Nov 10, 2003, 3:07 PM
Post #15 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2000
Posts: 317
|
Honestly, I think this is a terrible idea. You're now going to have a lot of people without the proper knowledge in placing protection, in this case.. cams, thinking that they're save. What about flaring cracks? Well, the cam is in the green, so I must be good.. etc. There's just so much more in the equation on this stuff that I feel it's giving people false security. That's just me though..
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 10, 2003, 8:24 PM
Post #16 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
I think it's just a marketing thing. Same thing as the Metolius Safe-Tech harness.
I think anybody who wants this marking on their cams could just put a sticker on them. I don't think camming range is that hard to identify to the average person and paying for some paint seems stupid to me.
I think they'd be better off making a cam that has springs that resist being under-cammed, and a marking on the stem or something that keeps your cam's from getting over-cammed while placing them.
On the flip side, since they say over-camming is cool (with the green dots) i'm willing to bet that a lot of people will start getting their cam's stuck, which means guys like me that will work on a getting a piece of pro out for 2+ hours, will find a lot more cams to booty. So in that sense, I hope they sell like hot-cakes.
But if people are willing to buy them, you can't blame Metolius for making them.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Nov 10, 2003, 8:35 PM
Post #17 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: On the flip side, since they say over-camming is cool (with the green dots) i'm willing to bet that a lot of people will start getting their cam's stuck, which means guys like me that will work on a getting a piece of pro out for 2+ hours, will find a lot more cams to booty. So in that sense, I hope they sell like hot-cakes.
Yeah man. The first thing I thought of when I saw them was more booty for me. I pity the fool that relies on the dots to make a placement.
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Nov 10, 2003, 8:50 PM
Post #18 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
In reply to: I think it's just a marketing thing. Same thing as the Metolius Safe-Tech harness.
I think your incorrect in saying that the ideas behind the safe-tech harnesses are just "marketing". A lot of them make damn good sense, and at least they are a step forward to helping the problems that HAVE CONTRIBUTED to injuries and deaths in the past. To say that that is just marketting, is ignorant. Hell, and even if it is.. they are still marketting a safer harness, so why the hell not?
Things like the obviously webbing color to ensure that you double pas your buckle is clearly a good idea. But since YOU are such an expert climber, and NEVER forget to do anything, I guess you wouldn't need it. Regardless, tyhere are thousands of climbers all around the world, and some of us actually do forget stuff like that, and if no one checks us out.....
Full strength gear loops are also a bonus, in any way you look at it. Why the hell not? 2000+ llb strength spectra sounds a lot better than the molded plastic on most harnesses.
WHatever, back onto the original topic... but some of you need to open your ass wide enough to be able to speak clearly next time.
|
|
|
|
|
ramylson
Nov 10, 2003, 8:56 PM
Post #19 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2000
Posts: 317
|
Certain point on their harnesses are nice. And, from owning a Metolious harness currently, it's a solid product. But, I question the full strength gear loops. It's good idea.. I still don't like it. I've seen enough issues in the gyms, and out at the crags, where people are actually tying into their gear loops. Sure, it's making the product "safer" (even though I don't feel that's the case w/ their cams), but at what cost? It's almost like their saying you can just take their product and go. That you don't need to know all of the knowledge behind the principles that we use while out at the crags. As an end result, I think we'll see more accidents as a result.
Just my opinion of course..
|
|
|
|
|
inflight
Nov 10, 2003, 9:04 PM
Post #20 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 172
|
Overall, I think it is a great idea. I always look at the crack shape, the point of contact the lobes make with the rock and how cammed the unit is so having a definitive mark makes my evaluation efficient.
They should remove some of the green dots at the top of the lobes since it will lead to a jammed cam.
How it will impact the climbing population is speculation. There are no substitutes for professional instruction and no safety features in the form of reminders and placement guides can replace it. Hopefully, newcomers will realize this early on.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Nov 10, 2003, 9:24 PM
Post #21 of 59
(6583 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
cool!!!!!
now that these cams are out, i'm going to stop trad climbing until someone starts putting colored tape on the routes so i know where the hell to go!
climbing is sooo scary.
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Nov 10, 2003, 9:26 PM
Post #22 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
In reply to: Certain point on their harnesses are nice. And, from owning a Metolious harness currently, it's a solid product. But, I question the full strength gear loops. It's good idea.. I still don't like it. I've seen enough issues in the gyms, and out at the crags, where people are actually tying into their gear loops. Sure, it's making the product "safer" (even though I don't feel that's the case w/ their cams), but at what cost? It's almost like their saying you can just take their product and go. That you don't need to know all of the knowledge behind the principles that we use while out at the crags. As an end result, I think we'll see more accidents as a result. Just my opinion of course..
i think you are alooking at it completely backwards. Metolius definitely does NOT condone the use of their products in absence of proper training by qualified and experiecned people. At the same time, however, I feel that they are making many positive steps forwards in gear design. We ALL make mistakes, unfortunately, and it is through these mistakes that we are injured and killed.
|
|
|
|
|
dynoguy
Nov 10, 2003, 9:32 PM
Post #23 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2003
Posts: 730
|
do you pay extra for the paint?
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Nov 10, 2003, 9:53 PM
Post #24 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
Hopefully as they phase these in I can pick up some of the old just as safe design cheap.
What about the silver TCUs? They'll have 2 dots. One red one green.
|
|
|
|
|
inflight
Nov 10, 2003, 10:08 PM
Post #25 of 59
(6588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 172
|
In reply to: Hopefully as they phase these in I can pick up some of the old just as safe design cheap. What about the silver TCUs? They'll have 2 dots. One red one green.
Good point and kinda funny. I don't think the dots will be useful in the smaller cams. They should not even bother doting cams #00-5. The tolerances are too small.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Nov 10, 2003, 10:45 PM
Post #26 of 59
(5837 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
The dots are information. When did information start to be a bad thing? There are too many nay-sayers on this web site...
|
|
|
|
|
fear
Nov 10, 2003, 11:05 PM
Post #27 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 475
|
In reply to: ... But, I question the full strength gear loops. It's good idea.. I still don't like it.. Just my opinion of course..
Once you have a regular gear loop break and dump 5 brand new Grivel screws 1100 feet back down the gulley .... Then you'll understand.... The guys 500 feet below you will also ......
-Fear
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Nov 10, 2003, 11:41 PM
Post #28 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
Out of the top of my head, I can remember at least 2 injuries reported on that forum, , one fatal, one almost, which were reported as linked to a beginner, placing a cam, and resting on it or falling on to it.
There was also the case of Goran Kröp in which the verdict hasn't been resolved yet, but in which multpile camming device failed (although an astounding mountaineer , he was new to trad, wasn't he ?).
I am thoroughly disapointed by the elitist reactions of some of the "EXPERTS". I am so disgusted by them that I won't quote them.
What the heck, do some of you believe that "beginner" comes from "to beg", and they should bow to your knowledge, walk in your footsteps and listen to your wisdom ????
Pray, tell me if it is your innate ability to always quickly and accurately judge the exact size of the cam and its pefect placement with what gives your the right to ridicule a small effort to try to make climbing safer for beginner ? and how did you develop this ability, master , please tell me ?
Does making climbing safer for someone else than you threaten you ???
in which fashion ? , in which are of your personnality ?
Back to the issue, it seems clear that:
a/ proper size is not enough, proper placement is necessary, those marks address the first kind of errors not the second. => perhaps room for improvment, certainly room for instructions (the safety is more in the attitude of the human than in the gear).
I challenge you to stop gloating about future booty to come up with a "trick" to make the choice and/or verification of the placement a mandatory step.
Here is my recommendation:
stamping on the friend next to the dots:
1. place,
2. size
3. tug
what's yours ?
On the subject of the full strength gear loop, again, this may be marketed as a unique selling point (marketing linguo), but it is a valid safety measure.
a/ even experts in difficult situations do stupid things
b/ beginners do those stupid things more often.
To answer ramylson's point "It's almost like their saying you can just take their product and go". it is not saying it more loudly than before because beginners have already the beliefs that the gear is sound. Go to a gym (come on, I know you can), or go to a local crag and ask 10 or 15 or the climbers around their ideas about the strength of the harness, the belay loop and the gear loops. How many would have considered the question before you asked them. As consumers, they implicitly trust suppliers.
Some products features are dangerous designs (like velcro tabs that can make a unclosed harness look closed to an unaided eye.
Some features either automatic (like asymetric plugs) or facilitating human checks (color-coded) are little things that could save your life, the one of a close one or any life.
I could ramble on, please reply if you want more.......
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Nov 10, 2003, 11:50 PM
Post #29 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
personally, I've always just relied on that sickening feeling in my stomach, the taste of bile in my mouth, and the cold hand of death taping my on the shoulder to tell my placments where crap. Not a buch of little dots. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Nov 11, 2003, 12:06 AM
Post #30 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: Does making climbing safer for someone else than you threaten you ???
I don't think that some colored dots on a cam will make climbing safer. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure out if your cam is tipped out or overcammed. Do you find this a difficult determination to make?
In reply to: I challenge you to stop gloating about future booty to come up with a "trick" to make the choice and/or verification of the placement a mandatory step.
I don't think there's any trick that will replace good judgement and mileage on the rock. You can make up whatever cute sayings you want, but you still need to have an experienced eye to sum up the multitude of factors that make for a good or bad placement. Even then, you can't be sure all the time.
BTW, I like the SafeTech harnesses and would buy one if I needed a new harness and weight wasn't an issue.
None of this was meant to be inflammatory, just adding to the dialog.
|
|
|
|
|
andypro
Nov 11, 2003, 1:31 AM
Post #31 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1077
|
In reply to: I am thoroughly disapointed by the elitist reactions of some of the "EXPERTS". I am so disgusted by them that I won't quote them.
Welcome to the internet :wink: Theres alot of people who come off as pricks on here, but theres alot who arent, but sound like they may be. I woulnd't let it ruffle your feathers. Youll get used to it, and learn to pick out the ones to listen to.
In reply to: Does making climbing safer for someone else than you threaten you ??? in which fashion ? , in which are of your personnality ?
This can actually be a touchy subject. You really need to differentiate between "safer" and "dumbing down". Safer is good. Who doesn't want to be as safe as possible? But dumbing down leads to complacency of the inexperienced, and that's a casket waiting to be filled.
In reply to: I challenge you to stop gloating about future booty to come up with a "trick" to make the choice and/or verification of the placement a mandatory step. Here is my recommendation: stamping on the friend next to the dots: 1. place, 2. size 3. tug what's yours ?
My trick? Experience. No matter what gadgets or matrkings etc you come up with, theres no substitute for it. See the above blurb.
|
|
|
|
|
braaaaaaaadley
Nov 11, 2003, 1:44 AM
Post #32 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 576
|
I am so confused now... everyone says overcamming is bad due to less cam contact with the rock, so why the hell does the manufacurer now recomend?
|
|
|
|
|
scubasnyder
Nov 11, 2003, 1:46 AM
Post #33 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 1639
|
how much do they rob u for those cams ??
|
|
|
|
|
trad_mike
Nov 11, 2003, 2:20 AM
Post #34 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 96
|
In reply to: I am so confused now... everyone says overcamming is bad due to less cam contact with the rock, so why the hell does the manufacurer now recomend?
Undercammed is way more dangerous than overcammed. Overcammed placements just get stuck. Undercammed placements walk, tip out or blow. Most manufacturers recommend a range of at least 40-50 percent cammed all the way up to 90+ percent.
CCH recommends 80% cammed for Aliens. I use the same amount for TCUs.
|
|
|
|
|
data118
Nov 11, 2003, 2:35 AM
Post #35 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 845
|
I don't think Metolius is going to charge more.
I think these cams are great for a person like me. Experience, experience, experience is all I hear. I couldn't agree more. I wasn't able to find an experience leader to follow. So I read as much climbing literature that I can find, and asked as many questions as I can. I practiced placing pro on the ground and hired a guide for a day. So in my case, how did I get the experience... by just going out and doing it for myself. Well, my first full season is almost over and I'm pretty confident in my placements, but sure wished I had these when I started and even now. If anything, these would have been a great teaching tool for me in that I could double check and be reassured I picked the right size.
However, I wouldn't want a total beginner to pick up these cams and think they can place bomber pro now. Metolius will still have their disclaimer that climbing is dangerous and to seek professional instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
corpse
Nov 11, 2003, 4:00 AM
Post #36 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 822
|
I'm gonna come out with my own cam design I think.. Each cam will have position sensors, and that will have an ultralightweight transmitter into it. The receiver, stored in my helmet, will automatically detect which cam is being used and will send out audible indicator if my placement is good. And based on obvious demand, it will also have "rock sensors", so the placement range will adjust based on rock type (ie: sandstone, granite), rock condition (chossy, mossy, wet, dry, etc), weather conditions (dry, humid, whatever).
It will also have various axle sensors, so if I take a fall it will record the precise physics so I can later download the information into my database and analyze the results.
|
|
|
|
|
data118
Nov 11, 2003, 4:52 AM
Post #37 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 845
|
I wonder how the old timers with their hemp rope and pitons must have reacted towards the notion of nuts, hexes, cams, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 11, 2003, 7:25 AM
Post #38 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
I have a problem with the SafeTech harness and these cams because as other have put it, it's "dumbing down" the sport.
Look at the Gri-Gri...quite possibly the safest belay device when used properly, and the most dangerous when used incorrectly.
People start putting such confidence in a device, and belive that it CAN NOT fail them, and that's when people get hurt. How many accidents have been caused by people using Gri-Gri's? Gym's mandate Gri-Gri use, they tell people it'll always catch them, then they go out on their own and rig it incorrectly and somebody gets hurt.
And it now looks like things could be going this way with the SafeTech harness. Somebody is going to get used to never doubling back their buckles, and belaying off of their gear loop, so when they go and use any other harness... their system fails. And that's the problem. People are going to get away with doing things wrong on this harness, and negative reinforcement is NEVER a good thing.
The concept of camming range is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. I've learned to use the middle half of the lobes, and while I know different manufactures recommend different % retractions of their cams, the middle 50% of the range seems like a safe rule of thumb, at least to me.
Everybody has a different number in their head about how much you should retract a cam when placing it, and I'm sure we could argue those numbers all day, but my point is we know what we're looking for in our placements. I think we'd almost all agree that colored dots on the sides of cam lobes are not going to make a placement any quicker, or safer, or better when used by somebody that know's what they're doing.
They might make it slightly easier for a beginner to judge if their under-cammed (but apparently not over-cammed), however I think a lot of people are going to have more confidence in manky placements because the "green dots touch the rock." For this reason, i think they are a bad idea.
The only way for people to be safe is to understand how the gear works, and how the systems work. If somebody is relying on colored dots to judge whether or not a placement is safe... then they shouldn't be making a placement in the first place. If you need something to tell you whether or not your doing it right or not, then you shouldn't be doing it in the first place (especially when your life is dependant upon it.)
Should they make chocks that say "insufficient surface contact" in Simple Text to you when you place them incorrectly?
If you doubt your skills enough to feel the need for a device to tell you whether or not your using it correctly, then your jumping into something that your not ready for and leading trad is not something people should be jumping into.
|
|
|
|
|
skiorclimb
Nov 11, 2003, 8:04 AM
Post #39 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 169
|
The best way I know to get better at judging placements is to either follow someone who you trust knows what they are doing, or climb really easy routes and have someone that knows what they are doing critique your placements. Most of the trad climbers I know did a little of both when they were starting out.
Before I started trad climbing, I had a very similar idea to this range finding system. When I started actually climbing trad I quickly realised there is no need for it. Now, having thought more about it, and the safe tech, I belive it could be detrimental to beginner safety. I do agree that it is dumbing down/ over-simplifying.
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Nov 11, 2003, 10:58 AM
Post #40 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
In reply to: I don't think that some colored dots on a cam will make climbing safer. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure out if your cam is tipped out or overcammed. Do you find this a difficult determination to make?
Pesonnally, no, but I'll not bet on myself being able to do so 100% on the 5th pitch, tired, with high fear factor,etc....
For others, accidents such as http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35838&highlight=overcammed
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42517&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=168
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27497
pics of said acident at (check the reconstruction of the placement, which show overcamming) http://www.pbase.com/phil_box/accident_at_frog_buttress_8303&page=all
and further discussion on the poor placement
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=43
if cams failing happens all the time, and it's almost always 100% user error. (to quote up2top), why is attempting to limit user error a bad thing ?
In reply to: This can actually be a touchy subject. You really need to differentiate between "safer" and "dumbing down". Safer is good. Who doesn't want to be as safe as possible? But dumbing down leads to complacency of the inexperienced, and that's a casket waiting to be filled.
I understand the point 200% and also understand the point from jimdavis
In reply to: Look at the Gri-Gri...quite possibly the safest belay device when used properly, and the most dangerous when used incorrectly. People start putting such confidence in a device, and belive that it CAN NOT fail them, and that's when people get hurt.
I agree 110% with the principle, but not with its application without careful consideration of numbers: how many lifes are you going to save in both cases.
regarding Grigri, yes you have accidents with them, but how many would you get if you did not have that device ?
A device is safer if physically prevents errors or make human validation simpler. (exemple: a color-coded screwgate will facilitate visual inspection, inertia locking mechanism of the grigri). A device is dangerous if it hides a potential error from the user (example: possibility to reverse feed the grigri)
in the particular case of color coded cam, the same "gimmick" has a dual effect : prevent overcamming error, but could hide other source of error : poor placement leading to walking,etc ...
so this is not perfect. but considering the costs that some beginners had to pay while attempting to get that "experience" you have already so much of (pun intended, don't take offense, do not pass go, do not collect 20k), isn'it worthwhile ?
Let's move a bit outside of climbing whith its emotional baggage, and consider :
1. ABS system: would you today buy a car without Anti-blocking-system ?
have you been involved in a accident-situation where ABS made the difference for you ?
This device provides near-expert braking skills to anyone . Would you remove it because of the very few accidents caused by the over-confidence it creates ????
This is really a case where the driving education and the regular practice didn't provide the experience necessary.
Do you know that the very strong braking it provides from the start actually get some drivers to actually stop braking, and that manufacturers had to develop Brake Assist systems to make sure that an emergency braking attempt is not weakened by faltering drivers ?
2. Vehicle Stability Control or Electonic Stability Program systems limit over-steering and under-steering. Yes, there are some studies that show that a % of drivers may become over-confident and get an accident later, but those acidents are less than the accidents avoided.
To avoid this over-confidence, manufacturers are now considering including alerts (audio and visuals) that now go on when the system is sollicited and not when it is no longer capable of performing.
As you may have understood from my ramblings, the devices I prefer are the ones that make errors impossible (asymetric electrig plugs) or devices
that catch the errors and tell about it; the devices that require some instruction to be operated safely (grigri) are OK, the devices that should be reviewed are the ones that breed complacency (in my eye, some autolocking biners are dangerous, not all), devices that only an expert can use safely present a problem: how can you garantee that a beginner can be trained into an expert ?
As many pointed out, in the end, it's the human that makes the difference
safety is in the attitude, not in the gear, not in the safe-gards.
and some will be doing the gene-pool a favor sooner or later
3. SUVs have a much higher roll-over rate. the more car-looking-like and the more sturdy-looking they are, the more likely drivers are abusing the high weigth distribution/soft suspension concept. so manufacturer have to tune the cars for a much better road-handling; but haven't found a way to educate the drivers....
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Nov 11, 2003, 12:15 PM
Post #41 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
Could agree almost with all of jimdavis post, except:
1/ the slightly condescending tone used toward beginners ("dumbing down" indeed, why not "camming for dummies" while you are at it :D )
In reply to: If you doubt your skills enough to feel the need for a device to tell you whether or not your using it correctly, then your jumping into something that your not ready for and leading trad is not something people should be jumping into.
Although I fully agree, (and I might have use a similar sentence myself) , the use of "someone" instead of "you" rubs me wrong
Nicolas, nitpicking 'cause I can't be nutpicking
(are trad climbers just chipmuncks with a bad karma ?)
Seriously, and as a way of balancing my venting of emotion, (I know I should go climbing)
In reply to: I've learned to use the middle half of the lobes, and while I know different manufactures recommend different % retractions of their cams, the middle 50% of the range seems like a safe rule of thumb, at least to me. Everybody has a different number in their head about how much you should retract a cam when placing it, and I'm sure we could argue those numbers all day, ...
You would probably find some physiscs explanation at http://web.mit.edu/custer/www/rocking/cams/cams.body.html
In reply to: Most importantly, climbers would be aware when devices have dangerously low frictional holding ability or maximum load to shear failure. Of similar importance, an explicit awareness of cam limitations allows climbers to place the devices more securely and with greater confidence.
I have not redone the maths (I wish I could), but what strikes me is that the yellow zone visible on the pic (first page) doesn't match my own initial assumption (same as yours) that the middle 50% of the range was OK .
it seems that it should be slanted toward retracted (acceptable between 15% and 65% of the range instead of between 25% and 75%)
(for a given rock quality and friction, mind you)
Trying to get hard numbers got me to http://www.dmmwales.com/home_images/DMM%20Camming%20Devices.PDF
In reply to: g) Always ensure that all the cams make contact with the sides of the crack preferably in the middle 1/3rd. of their expansion range (i.e. the cams should be 1/3rd. to 2/3rd. open).
Considering the ranges of the smallest cams (here 3CU DMM)
0.5 Violet 13-19 mm
0.75 Green 17-24
1 Blue 19-29
1.25 Silver 21-33,
can you really judge the angle at arms length of such itti-bitty wisper of a thingie all the time, everytime ?
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Nov 11, 2003, 4:40 PM
Post #42 of 59
(5832 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
i'm sorry, folks, but i really can't deal with this color coded crap. first it was color coded slings on cams waaaay back; then it was color coded nuts (i don't include tricams because as far as i can remember they've had colored slings); now the color coded cams again.
here's the deal: 1) you eyeball the placement 2) you grab something off your rack (making sure you've gone a size smaller than you think you'll need, to compensate for the old "eyes are bigger than the crack" phenomenon) 3) you frig it in 4) move on.
this pansy-assed, gym-taped, this-will-make-it-safer crap will continue to be fed to you by the manufacturers [i:68f7ea32b0]if you keep eating it[/i:68f7ea32b0].
grow a sack.
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Nov 11, 2003, 8:35 PM
Post #43 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: I am so confused now... everyone says overcamming is bad due to less cam contact with the rock, so why the hell does the manufacurer now recomend?
This may be due to the other thread about camming. In that, I was specifically talking about overcamming as opposed to a perfect placement. Overcammed is worse than perfect because there's less contact with the wall. But under-cammed IS way worse than over-cammed because it can just fall out or walk. The extremes of un overcammed unit is that it's pulled down 100%. It's bad, but nearly as bad as the extremes of undercammed, where the cam doesn't even touch the sides of the wall...
Different manufacturers recommend different tolerances. Camalots are designed to be pulled down more (I think they said 90%!) while others recomend less. This is due to how each is designed not to some rule about all cams.
|
|
|
|
|
andypro
Nov 11, 2003, 8:58 PM
Post #44 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1077
|
In reply to: i'm sorry, folks, but i really can't deal with this color coded crap. first it was color coded slings on cams waaaay back; then it was color coded nuts (i don't include tricams because as far as i can remember they've had colored slings); now the color coded cams again.
Ya know....I jsut thought of something. I dont think I have ever once looked at a placement and thought "I'll bet the red TCU would be perfect in there". Just grabbed the umbrella that looks best.
In reply to: this pansy-assed, gym-taped, this-will-make-it-safer crap will continue to be fed to you by the manufacturers if you keep eating it. grow a sack.
Amen Bruthuh! Tess-Tihhh-Faahhhhhh!!
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Nov 11, 2003, 9:01 PM
Post #45 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: Overcammed is worse than perfect because there's less contact with the wall.
Sorry, this isn't true. A constant cam angle means that you'll have equal contact with the rock throughout the camming range. The only problem with overcamming is that the unit is harder to clean.
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Nov 12, 2003, 12:40 AM
Post #46 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: In reply to: Overcammed is worse than perfect because there's less contact with the wall. Sorry, this isn't true. A constant cam angle means that you'll have equal contact with the rock throughout the camming range. The only problem with overcamming is that the unit is harder to clean.
Take a look at this
http://web.mit.edu/.../cams/cams.body.html
Look at the elastic model. Neither rock, nor metal is perfectly inelastic, and the tighness of the curve DOES have an effect on how much metal is touching the rock. Again, not to confuse things, this doesn't mean you should undercam, just that overcamming is also bad.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Nov 12, 2003, 2:09 AM
Post #47 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
I cram the biggest cam I can into my placements. This allows room for expansion in lthe less-than-solid rock I usually climb. I have had only one cam fail to hold a fall or bodyweight in 30 years of climbing, a 2-cam placement of a 1.5 technical friend 20 years ago on Bird of Fire in Josh.
More important than the holding power to my mind is the fact that this practice means that my rack gets lighter faster as I approach the crux, and my second's rack gets heavier faster as she approaches the crux, which provides my partners with an instant sandbag on any of my leads.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 13, 2003, 5:54 AM
Post #48 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: More important than the holding power to my mind is the fact that this practice means that my rack gets lighter faster as I approach the crux, and my second's rack gets heavier faster as she approaches the crux, which provides my partners with an instant sandbag on any of my leads.
I like how you think! 8)
I second that quote about the idiots also.
In reply to: "If you make a device that even an idiot can use, only an idiot will use it." |
|
|
|
|
tedc
Nov 14, 2003, 5:59 PM
Post #49 of 59
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
Finally, someone points out that there is nothing less safe about "over" camming a unit. The cam angle stays constant. But they are a b*tch to remove. I dropped (not literally) a partner over his tendancy to do this.
TedC
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Nov 14, 2003, 6:11 PM
Post #50 of 59
(5378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: Take a look at this http://web.mit.edu/.../cams/cams.body.html Look at the elastic model. Neither rock, nor metal is perfectly inelastic, and the tighness of the curve DOES have an effect on how much metal is touching the rock. Again, not to confuse things, this doesn't mean you should undercam, just that overcamming is also bad.
I checked it out, but fail to see how a cam with a constant cam angle has variation in the amount of surface contact depending on retraction. I'm far from a math whiz, so I'm probably missing something. Could you be more specific as to where the model predicts that overcamming will provide less surface contact?
Thanks,
Crotch
|
|
|
|
|
madflash
Nov 14, 2003, 6:44 PM
Post #51 of 59
(4847 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 77
|
Oh god, just don't let the gym rats get there hands on them. I don't want to see those idiots out at the crags taking two hours to make it up my favorite 5.8 warmups. But then again, maybe they will get all their cams stuck for me to pirate. Hell yeah, let all the gym rats get their hands on these beautiful new toys for me to find in my beautiful cracks. Yes!Yessss!!!!YEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Nov 14, 2003, 7:31 PM
Post #52 of 59
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: I checked it out, but fail to see how a cam with a constant cam angle has variation in the amount of surface contact depending on retraction. I'm far from a math whiz, so I'm probably missing something. Could you be more specific as to where the model predicts that overcamming will provide less surface contact?
Yes, well, actually I was just wanting everyone to look at the picture. The math he uses to decide how much surface area is on the rock is the formula for a cylinder with a radius of 1/2 the crack width. So for HIS math, it doesn't matter how far the cam is retracted. The radius for his equations though is NOT in fact 1/2 the crack width.
Imagine where the cam lobe touches the rock. The rock wall makes an angle with the tangent to this curve which is fixed no matter how far the cam is retracted. That's the definition of the spiral right? If you look sideways at the situation (like the picture) you can approximate the curve as a circle whose radius depends on how far the cam has been retracted.
Now imagine you've got two cams, one bigger than the other, both using the same angle mentioned above. The difference between the bigger cam retracted 98% and the smaller cam retracted 65% is that in the smaller cam, the circle you use to approximate the curve has a larger radius, so more metal will touch the rock.
http://www.stoneseeker.com/...shape.definition.gif
Edited: Those circles should all be much bigger, but you get the idea... Also another note. He DOES actually have the radius changing in his elastic model and shows a chart of the maximal force versus the radius of the cylinder approximation. What the chart shows is the maximal force goes down as the cam is retracted (the radius gets smaller)
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Nov 14, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #53 of 59
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: Finally, someone points out that there is nothing less safe about "over" camming a unit. The cam angle stays constant. But they are a b*tch to remove. I dropped (not literally) a partner over his tendancy to do this.
Again, that's just not true (see above argument) The angle may remain the same, but the spiral is tighter so there's not as much surface area. A smaller cam placed in the lower extremes of it's retraction tolerances may be better.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Nov 14, 2003, 8:02 PM
Post #54 of 59
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: Imagine where the cam lobe touches the rock. The rock wall makes an angle with the tangent to this curve which is fixed no matter how far the cam is retracted. That's the definition of the spiral right? If you look sideways at the situation (like the picture) you can approximate the curve as a circle whose radius depends on how far the cam has been retracted.
OK. I'm with you when it comes to overcammed units having less surface contact than the same unit with less retraction. Is there any comparison between radii of those imaginary circles for a tightly cammed unit vs. a smaller unit that is at mid range for the same crack width? How do the radii compare?
Does the radius of the circle depend ONLY on how far the cam has been retracted, or does it ALSO depend on the size of the cam?
This has been enlightening. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
joshy8200
Nov 14, 2003, 8:17 PM
Post #55 of 59
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 646
|
If an overcammed unit is so incredibly hard to clean...ie there's literally in most cases no way to get it out besides pulling it out with a truck...surface area smurface area that sucker is SOLID.
Now in all honesty I can picture this surface area issue. But I feel like that would be when you placed the cam in a baby smooth, oiled down crack. If you overcammed it in such a placement, yeah I could see the potential for it sliding out...whereas the 50% retracted would have better contact.
But in a real piece of stone...the surface area of a few fractions of a millimeter squared I think are negligible. A larger cam trying to expand in a smaller crack just feels a little more solid than that 50% cammed piece that still moves a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Nov 14, 2003, 8:35 PM
Post #56 of 59
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
The "over-cammed units are going to pull" argument is rubbish. Using the logic that an over-cammed #2.5 friend is deadly, a #2 friend that fits the crack perfectly must therefore be dangerous as well. Of course that is not true.
As has been mentioned about 6 times already, the reason over-camming should be avoided is because the placements are hard to clean.
|
|
|
|
|
ep
Nov 14, 2003, 8:43 PM
Post #57 of 59
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2003
Posts: 88
|
It's an interesting model, despite the many assumptions and simplifications. It's pretty hard to argue with the idea that, all else being equal (perfect smooth parallel sided crack, no teeth on the cams, etc.), a larger and wider cam will have greater maximum holding force. Sure.
But when it comes to placing an actual piece, the relative difference in the maximum holding force throughout the useful range of a cam isn't calculated. Instead the author says:
"These estimates do not necessarily reflect actual performance; rather, the force estimates are plotted to show the wide range of maximum forces that devices might be expected to sustain."
So maybe the difference between overcammed and optimally cammed is so small as to be negligable and of no interest to climbers. Or maybe it is significant and could mean the difference between a piece holding or failing. The model doesn't answer the question. Pull tests would be interesting to see.
Until then, I'll keep doing pretty much what Brutus does.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Nov 14, 2003, 9:24 PM
Post #58 of 59
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Crotch wrote:
In reply to: Does the radius of the circle depend ONLY on how far the cam has been retracted, or does it ALSO depend on the size of the cam? Does the radius of the circle depend ONLY on how far the cam has been retracted, or does it ALSO depend on the size of the cam?
Assuming both cams have the same camming angle (which I believe all of the same brand do?), the surface area in contact with the rock for two different sized cams in exactly the same placement will be the same. In other words, if you want more surface area in contact with the rock, choose a shallower placement (in a flaring crack) or wider portion of the crack.
Another thing to keep in mind is that friction force is NOT a function of surface area. Granted, the grip of a cam is not pure friction between smooth surfaces. My point is that the only difference more contact surface area makes is in the pressure on the rock under the cam. lobes. I guess you could say greater pressure under the lobe is more likely to cause the rock to crumble and the placement to fail, but I would guess the difference in holding power due to this is not significant.
As was mentioned by others, overcamming makes pieces hard to remove. That's the primary drawback. But if you're limited on your selection of cams an the ideal crack placement means your piece will be somewhat overcammed, put it there rather than in less-than-optimal (too flaring/uneven/chossy) spot where the cam lobes are properly extended.
~Adam~
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Nov 14, 2003, 10:00 PM
Post #59 of 59
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: OK. I'm with you when it comes to overcammed units having less surface contact than the same unit with less retraction. Is there any comparison between radii of those imaginary circles for a tightly cammed unit vs. a smaller unit that is at mid range for the same crack width? How do the radii compare? Does the radius of the circle depend ONLY on how far the cam has been retracted, or does it ALSO depend on the size of the cam? This has been enlightening. Thanks.
Hmmm, now THAT'S a good question. A post below came up with the crux of the answer and I may have to um, rethink my thinking (that is, admit I'm wrong :) depending on the answer. If on a smaller cam, the angle used in creating the spiral is the same, then the tightness of the spiral is the same (since the radius is the same), and the surface area is the same whether it's a big cam tightly retracted or a smaller one, loosley retracted. I don't know the answer to that.
I may be mistaken here. My thinking comes from comparing the tight spiral of a cam to the loose spiral of the same cam and then assuming the looser the better (surface-area-wise) I wonder whether companies use the same angle for all the cams?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
