Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - Gear Lust / Lost & Found

Rave About Your Rack Please do not post retail SPAM.

 Page 1 of 4. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 66
Author
Cam failure discussion

Miguel75
20-Apr-2015
10:21:05 PM
Saw this thread and thought it interesting. I've pulled a cam once, I reckon it'd walked... I reckon this thread is a good little discussion;

http://mountainproject.com/v/textbook-cam-placements-can-pull-in-smooth-stone/110064375
mikllaw
20-Apr-2015
10:38:16 PM
cams are great except when they aren't
Unlubed cams are even worse
slick cracks are terrible

cams are great on granite and most sandstone, and they even hold in flares. On slick rock, passive gear rules.

Macciza
20-Apr-2015
11:44:06 PM
Many people don't seem to realise that you can damage the cams in such a way that they can develop flat spots that will affect the cams ability to hold at particular points in their range.

Half of the gear that looks bomber is shit, and had the shit gear is pretty bomber; and half the time you can't tell the difference between whats good or bad . . .

And I've had various gear blow for various reasons on various occasions . . . If I'm particularly concerned I'll build a nest . . .
White Gold
21-Apr-2015
8:42:21 AM
Q: Do cam teeth do anything?

A: Maybe. Manufacturers add them because, while few of us can grasp the real magic that locks a cam into place (the “constant angle”), we think that teeth help. But it’s mostly marketing, as cams without teeth would hold just the same.

When Ray Jardine rolled out the first commercial camming unit, the Friend, in the mid 1970s, he tried to be practical by making smooth-faced cams. But the first climbers to see the units scoffed and said they’d never hold. Only after Jardine added teeth did climbers begin to trust them.

Some people claim that teeth help the cams bite into grimy placements. This makes sense, but there’s no data to prove it. Still, since confidence breeds safety, the psychological advantage afforded by cam teeth justifies their existence.

http://www.rockandice.com/gear-guide-tips/cams-frequently-asked-questions
PDRM
21-Apr-2015
9:55:58 AM
On 20/04/2015 Macciza wrote:

>Half of the gear that looks bomber is shit, and had the shit gear is pretty
>bomber; and half the time you can't tell the difference between whats good
>or bad . . .

Aiding and bounce testing teaches you a bit more about this.
TimP
21-Apr-2015
10:06:21 AM
There is a bit about cam teeth in this article on the new Metolius cams: says they are designed so that "On soft rock, when the forces of a fall put enough energy into the cam to pull out, the rock actually pulverizes, creating a slick surface for the cam lobes to slide out of its placement. The goal of the shark fin profile is that it will enable the cam lobe to disperse the powdered rock to get down to solid rock."
See full article at WMR
These cams sound good but I do think we consume marketing. Some products claims are true, like this really is the "goal" of the shark fin above, some products like snack foods are constituted entirely of marketing. yum yum
Wendy
21-Apr-2015
11:07:02 AM
On 20/04/2015 Macciza wrote:

>
>Half of the gear that looks bomber is shit, and had the shit gear is pretty
>bomber; and half the time you can't tell the difference between whats good
>or bad . . .
>
Macciza's world has 3 halves! This sort of overgeneralisation is what leads lots of people to thinking their gear is good when it isn't or isn't when it is. Other than 1 inciident when I'd been climbing barely a month and really had no idea what I was doing, I have never had gear fail that I didn't think would probably fail. I reckon you can make a very high percentage assessment on what is good gear when you know what you are doing. The only bit I would agree with is some percentage of pretty crap looking gear actually holds and I have been pleasantly surprised by this a few times. And unpleasantly not surprised when it doesn't. So in the end you are best assuming that the crap looking gear really is crap.

Slippery cracks and cams? I don't know. I have heard of them coming out of supposedly good spots at the mount, but I have never had it happen to me, including on notorious for it placements like just before the crux on Trojan. Someone mentioned Frog as being a slippery parallel crack crag in that thread, and I'd have to say if your gear is coming out at Frog when you think it is bomber, the problem is your judgement of the placement, not the rock. I don't think Frog really classes as slippery at all and I've never had anything pop out of even the smoothest parallel cracks, like Yankee. I can't think of a crag I would actually be particularly worried about it on in Australia. The Mt would be the closest thing we have to smooth polished cracks and do we hear about it happening all the time???

Do people really "set" cams? I place, assess and run most of the time. Unlike wires, where setting actually has some purpose of preventing them getting lifted or knocked out, "setting" a cam seem like a waste of energy - it will function exactly the same way after setting as before and will walk, twist or lift in whatever manner is not managed through appropriate placement and ropework. And you could still kick them on the way past. "Setting" cams seems more like a nervous habit then a useful thing to do.
Dave_S
21-Apr-2015
11:38:19 AM
On 21/04/2015 Wendy wrote:
>
>The Mt would be the closest thing we have to smooth polished
>cracks and do we hear about it happening all the time???

Worth noting that while Arapiles rock can be very smooth and polished, it rarely ever forms perfectly parallel sided cracks. An undulation within the crack will stop any outward cam movement on even the slickest rock imaginable.

But other than that, I agree.

Superstu
21-Apr-2015
11:49:44 AM
I give all my cams a good solid tug in the expected fall direction before deciding they are good to clip. In one case high up on Hendrix this resulted in coming flying off with cam still in my hand, but at least I found out it was a shit placement.



Wendy
21-Apr-2015
11:56:52 AM
On 21/04/2015 Dave_S wrote:

>
>Worth noting that while Arapiles rock can be very smooth and polished,
>it rarely ever forms perfectly parallel sided cracks. An undulation within
>the crack will stop any outward cam movement on even the slickest rock
>imaginable.


Somewhere in the length of that thread, someone states some physics for why an undulation won't actually stop a cam failing to grip on slick rock. I can't remember the argument at all though, you'd have to search for it, sorry ...
>
mikllaw
21-Apr-2015
12:49:38 PM
If there's an undulation in one wall (and not the other) the cam can take advantage of this and reduce the camming angle, making it more solid.

I always thought (but never got around to testing) that a poorly lubed cam is very bad in slick rock, not only because you get less effective transfer of down-to-outwards forces, but it can't react quickly to a sudden load such as giving it a tug.

If a cam stem isn't aligned with the direction of load, you are giving up some of the available holding power, even more so if it's not lubed.


Macciza
21-Apr-2015
1:21:07 PM
PDRM - I have done a fair share of aiding, thats what led me to that conclusion . . .
Wendy- Check your maths, 2 halfs refer to placement, the other half refers to time . .
And yeah you should 'set' cams if there is any question about placement quality . .
And yes crap looking gear is probably crap, but not all bomber looking gear is good . . .
patto
21-Apr-2015
2:10:13 PM
The notion that cams can pull out of slick rock shouldn't be news to anybody. Cams rely on friction, if there isn't enough they will pull.

On 21/04/2015 Wendy wrote:
>Do people really "set" cams? I place, assess and run most of the time.
>Unlike wires, where setting actually has some purpose of preventing them
>getting lifted or knocked out, "setting" a cam seem like a waste of energy
>- it will function exactly the same way after setting as before and will
>walk, twist or lift in whatever manner is not managed through appropriate
>placement and ropework. And you could still kick them on the way past.
>"Setting" cams seems more like a nervous habit then a useful thing to do.

Absolutely you should give a cam a quick tug. Waste of energy? Ha! It is a quick tug and you are on your way. It is a good test of a cam.

My habit of doing this saved me the other day on the watchtower faces. I had a great 0.3 C4 in a bomber seam. I tugged it and the whole face opened up! It turned out to be a barely attached flake, yet on observation by myself and my partner it didn't appear to be a flake. My partner ended up removing the large block and hauling it up in his backpack. (Trundling was not an option.)

jezza
21-Apr-2015
2:24:22 PM
There's a weird cam placement on No Future at Araps, just before the mantle before the traverse. A few years ago I talked myself into an onsight attempt at the end of a day's climbing. Placed the cam, tugged it, looked bomber. Took a small fall going over the mantle, cam popped!!

I was slightly freaked out, but figured I must have missed something when I'd placed that cam. When I jumped back on and went past that crack (green C4?), I couldn't see anything wrong with it. Maybe it was _very_ slightly flaring, but with Araps quality rock a flare like that isn't a problem. It still looked like an excellent placement. I still don't know what it popped. It still freaks me out a little!! If anyone is interested it's the smallish slot feature below the mantle. I would like to solve the mystery. I suspect it's glassy in there.

jezza
21-Apr-2015
2:27:23 PM
>
>My partner ended
>up removing the large block and hauling it up in his backpack. (Trundling
>was not an option.)

That must have added significantly to the climbing of whatever route! Approx weight in kg ?
Wendy
21-Apr-2015
3:05:08 PM
On 21/04/2015 patto wrote:
>The notion that cams can pull out of slick rock shouldn't be news to anybody.

>
>On 21/04/2015 Wendy wrote:
>>Do people really "set" cams? I place, assess and run most of the time.
>>Unlike wires, where setting actually has some purpose of preventing them
>>getting lifted or knocked out, "setting" a cam seem like a waste of energy
>>- it will function exactly the same way after setting as before and will
>>walk, twist or lift in whatever manner is not managed through appropriate
>>placement and ropework. And you could still kick them on the way past.
>>"Setting" cams seems more like a nervous habit then a useful thing to
>do.
>Absolutely you should give a cam a quick tug. Waste of energy? Ha!
>It is a quick tug and you are on your way. It is a good test of a cam.

I don't need to test most of my cams. I can look and tell if they are any good. If they look at all questionable, i will tug them, but then, I'm not "setting" them. I'm testing them. Good cams don't need "setting" - they will just "unset" themselves straight away, so it's pointless. I'm asking if anyone does because someone of that thread suggested you should always set your cams, which seemed both nonsensical and unnecessary. Think of some of the stonker cracks at Frog. Would you "set" every cam in Infinity? I doubt I'd set a single one because they are all straight forward and great. I love the feeling of place, clip, go on terrain like that - it all flows together. Testing a questionable placement is different.
>
>My habit of doing this saved me the other day on the watchtower faces.
> I had a great 0.3 C4 in a bomber seam. I tugged it and the whole face
>opened up! It turned out to be a barely attached flake, yet on observation
>by myself and my partner it didn't appear to be a flake.

Your habit could also have gotten you hurt - if you had dislodged the flake onto yourself or knocked your self off balance and taken an awkward fall. And equally well, you could have climbed past it uneventfully, never loaded it and never known about the flake at all. Or you could have whipped onto it, ripped the flake and come flying down with it after you, but who knows?
Wendy
21-Apr-2015
3:06:48 PM
On 21/04/2015 jezza wrote:
>There's a weird cam placement on No Future at Araps, just before the mantle
>before the traverse. A few years ago I talked myself into an onsight attempt
>at the end of a day's climbing. Placed the cam, tugged it, looked bomber.
>Took a small fall going over the mantle, cam popped!!

No Future is another notorious one for ripping gear - I haven't actually gone and tested any of the slots in question but I might remember to next time.
kieranl
21-Apr-2015
3:15:36 PM
On 21/04/2015 Wendy wrote:
>On 21/04/2015 jezza wrote:
>>There's a weird cam placement on No Future at Araps, just before the
>mantle
>>before the traverse. A few years ago I talked myself into an onsight
>attempt
>>at the end of a day's climbing. Placed the cam, tugged it, looked bomber.
>>Took a small fall going over the mantle, cam popped!!
>
>No Future is another notorious one for ripping gear - I haven't actually
>gone and tested any of the slots in question but I might remember to next
>time.
I thought it was notorious because people weren't placing directionals at the start so the gear would unzip from the bottom before the top piece pulled.
One Day Hero
21-Apr-2015
3:40:07 PM
On 21/04/2015 Wendy wrote:
>Think
>of some of the stonker cracks at Frog. Would you "set" every cam in Infinity?
>I doubt I'd set a single one because they are all straight forward and
>great. I love the feeling of place, clip, go on terrain like that - it
>all flows together. Testing a questionable placement is different.

The placements are great but a lot of the rock at Frog is glassy as hell, hence the number of people who hit the ground because their cams slide out. Same with Araps. Very few people seem to hit the ground with cams sliding out at Buffalo, Booroomba, the Blueys, etc. I agree that "set" is a silly word when used in connection with cams, much better to say "test".

Am seriously considering getting some Totem things for Bungers. Normal cams in perfect parallel cracks are not reliable down there.
One Day Hero
21-Apr-2015
3:42:49 PM
On 21/04/2015 White Gold wrote:
>Still, since confidence
>breeds safety, the psychological advantage afforded by cam teeth justifies
>their existence.

What the hell are you basing that statement on? I would say misplaced confidence breeds smashed ankles and spinal injuries.

 Page 1 of 4. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 66
There are 66 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints