In reply to Dave Searle:
I think that the whole cams behind flakes ia load of sh*te, especially for the RU.
Think about this for a minute....
I have quoted sizes to make it easier to understand, rather than any other reason.
a 30-40mm wide placement
Use a cam that has a 32mm max size, load it in a fall, how much will it expand? Very little, only the bite into the rock surface.
Use a nut that has a 32mm max size, load it in a fall, what happens, it wedges tighter into the crack.
Now use a cam, that is say 42mm at maximum expansion, if it is in the same placement, how much will it expand? Once again, only into the surface of the rock.
The loading placed upon the gear, does not increase just because it is a cam.
A cam will force into the placement, and then relax, as it becomes unloaded.
A nut will wedge into the crack, and exert the force on the placement until it is removed.
In the case of a loose flake, then cams may be a problem.
a 32mm nut or cam, will wedge the flake open, until 32mm, and then either hold or fail.
a 44m cam will do the same, but just force the placement wider.
Any gear placed behind a loose flake will lever it off, cam or nut.
In the case of the RU, this flake is not being forced to any noticable amount.
However, shock loading of a piece of gear, may cause the bond between the grains of grit to fail.
The force exerted upon the placement is the same, there is no mechanical advantage being gained by a cam, to turn a fall of 3kn in 6kn.
The problem with cams is, the walking action, that erodes the surface of the rock. I noticed this a Brimham recently, where a horizontal break, proably took a 2 1/2, and will now take a 3, just by the rock being worn away, by cams walking.
I hope that makes sense, and will happily be proved wrong, by a reasoned and sensible argument.
I think the car jacking was late 70s..