This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Are they worth the extra money.3 camalot c4's are just under £150 at go out doors.I can get 3 single axle cams from my local climbing wall for £100.Is the extra range and easy of placment worth the extra 50 quid?
In reply to cheek to the rock:
Probably. But wait for the Jan sales and they'll drop in price. Then it'll be definitely worth it.
Probably. But wait for the Jan sales and they'll drop in price. Then it'll be definitely worth it.
Post edited at 19:21
In reply to cheek to the rock:
They are nice, but if money is a consideration you won't go wrong with single axle cams. I used a full set of bargain bucket unbranded cams for 10 years with absolutely no complaints. I still mostly use single axle cams now, and in general use you really can't tell much difference.
They are nice, but if money is a consideration you won't go wrong with single axle cams. I used a full set of bargain bucket unbranded cams for 10 years with absolutely no complaints. I still mostly use single axle cams now, and in general use you really can't tell much difference.
In reply to cheek to the rock:
i think Twin axle cams have Advantages. they cant overcam, and give a wider range of placements per cam.
whether you think that justifies the cost is your Choice? is there that much difference in Price? shop around.
i think Twin axle cams have Advantages. they cant overcam, and give a wider range of placements per cam.
whether you think that justifies the cost is your Choice? is there that much difference in Price? shop around.
In reply to Choss:
What makes you think that? I've seem any number of in situ camalots that would say otherwise...
> i think Twin axle cams have Advantages. they cant overcam
What makes you think that? I've seem any number of in situ camalots that would say otherwise...
In reply to cheek to the rock:
If i get the camalot 4c i can get 0.3/0.75 and 2.The ranges over lap so i wouldnt need 0.5 and 1.Then before summer i could get 4 and 6 and not need 3 and 5.The wild country set was 2 3 and 4 for £100
Sorry 10mm difference between 0.75 and 2
If i get the camalot 4c i can get 0.3/0.75 and 2.The ranges over lap so i wouldnt need 0.5 and 1.Then before summer i could get 4 and 6 and not need 3 and 5.The wild country set was 2 3 and 4 for £100
Sorry 10mm difference between 0.75 and 2
Post edited at 20:58
In reply to cheek to the rock:
What kind of rock to you climb?
Do you know whether they're technical friends or helium friends?
Camalot size 6 is very big and heavy - not worth buying unless you're into offwidths.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/-OyRhB8k_uDs/TTpuKVWgrPI/AAAAAAAAGT0/kbn6y7YaXNs/s1152...
The ranges of the cam do technically overlap, but each cam has a usable range.
You can't really use a cam safely when it's opened too wide (undercammed) and it can be very difficult to extract when it is not opened wide enough (overcammed).
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4112/5040847081_68d317cc7c_z.jpg
What kind of rock to you climb?
Do you know whether they're technical friends or helium friends?
Camalot size 6 is very big and heavy - not worth buying unless you're into offwidths.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/-OyRhB8k_uDs/TTpuKVWgrPI/AAAAAAAAGT0/kbn6y7YaXNs/s1152...
The ranges of the cam do technically overlap, but each cam has a usable range.
You can't really use a cam safely when it's opened too wide (undercammed) and it can be very difficult to extract when it is not opened wide enough (overcammed).
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4112/5040847081_68d317cc7c_z.jpg
In reply to cheek to the rock:
Wouldn't think too much about the double vs single axle thing.
I find totem cams (an unconventional single axle design) to be easier to place (and more placement opportunities) than the corresponding camalot C4
Sadly totems don't go very big, if I were to buy from scratch:
- Smaller than totems cams: mastercams, or possibly camalot x4s
- Totem cams sizes: totem cams
- Larger than totems: camalot c4s
- Really big: big bros? I have a #5 c4 and its damned heavy.
Wouldn't think too much about the double vs single axle thing.
I find totem cams (an unconventional single axle design) to be easier to place (and more placement opportunities) than the corresponding camalot C4
Sadly totems don't go very big, if I were to buy from scratch:
- Smaller than totems cams: mastercams, or possibly camalot x4s
- Totem cams sizes: totem cams
- Larger than totems: camalot c4s
- Really big: big bros? I have a #5 c4 and its damned heavy.
In reply to blackreaver:
I plan on climbing in wales and scotland in summer,i live near wilton quarrys so thats my local. I want to have enough gear to do some big multi pitch mountain routes.I was thinking lower grades on the mountain routes and up to E1 at wilton.What size cams do you think should be my first 3??
I will be doing observation ridge on the ben,of that im sure and i want to do something on dinas cromlech and gogarth and tramadog and a few others
I plan on climbing in wales and scotland in summer,i live near wilton quarrys so thats my local. I want to have enough gear to do some big multi pitch mountain routes.I was thinking lower grades on the mountain routes and up to E1 at wilton.What size cams do you think should be my first 3??
I will be doing observation ridge on the ben,of that im sure and i want to do something on dinas cromlech and gogarth and tramadog and a few others
Post edited at 22:32
In reply to needvert:
When I first saw the Totems my immediate thoughts were I'll hold off on these until we see how durable the load baring wires are (seeing as this is a weak spot on all other climbing kit I own with wires), I saw a review by a shop recently online and they expressed the same concerns. It'll be interesting to see if these cams are as durable as other cams in a few years time
When I first saw the Totems my immediate thoughts were I'll hold off on these until we see how durable the load baring wires are (seeing as this is a weak spot on all other climbing kit I own with wires), I saw a review by a shop recently online and they expressed the same concerns. It'll be interesting to see if these cams are as durable as other cams in a few years time
In reply to cheek to the rock:
I own twin axel cams, I'd say there is a functional disadvantage to this design in that the cam can not rotate about the axel once placed without moving the cam lobes. Basically you are trading a fairly small increase in expansion (compare the dragons to the heliums for example) for a slightly less ideal design and some increased weight.
I own twin axel cams, I'd say there is a functional disadvantage to this design in that the cam can not rotate about the axel once placed without moving the cam lobes. Basically you are trading a fairly small increase in expansion (compare the dragons to the heliums for example) for a slightly less ideal design and some increased weight.
In reply to needvert:
Big totem cams would be really uselessly floppy. Like the biggest mastercam, which is infuriating to the point of uselessness.
Big bros aren't really a sensible suggestion as an alternative to size 5 and 6 cams, unless you happen to climb on rock with very clean parallel-sided cracks. They are very sensitive to the placement (since only a small area is in contact with the rock), much more so than really big cams.
Big totem cams would be really uselessly floppy. Like the biggest mastercam, which is infuriating to the point of uselessness.
Big bros aren't really a sensible suggestion as an alternative to size 5 and 6 cams, unless you happen to climb on rock with very clean parallel-sided cracks. They are very sensitive to the placement (since only a small area is in contact with the rock), much more so than really big cams.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Why is that a problem? Unless you never extend them?
If all my cams got nicked tomorrow, I'd replace all but the smallest ones with C4s/Dragons. They just have a nicer action and are somehow more reassuring. Then I'd buy some Totem cams because they're ace too.
> I own twin axel cams, I'd say there is a functional disadvantage to this design in that the cam can not rotate about the axel once placed without moving the cam lobes. Basically you are trading a fairly small increase in expansion (compare the dragons to the heliums for example) for a slightly less ideal design and some increased weight.
Why is that a problem? Unless you never extend them?
If all my cams got nicked tomorrow, I'd replace all but the smallest ones with C4s/Dragons. They just have a nicer action and are somehow more reassuring. Then I'd buy some Totem cams because they're ace too.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
It can be a problem in placements where you have placed the cam lobes very carefully because of irregularities in the rock (I do this very often on some rock types). However much you extend a cam you can't always predict the direction of load exactly and during a fall before the cam is fully loaded the lobes can move in to less ideal positions. Also I have found in horizontal cracks with shallow placements (for the cam size) twin axel cams can be hard to place and orientate the stem in the direction it will get loaded.
This doesn't bother me a huge amount (which is why I bought a full set of dragons, prior to this I owned a mixed set of cams including BD C4)
I like the look of the Totems (apart from in the smallest sizes where the workings look a bit large compared with the cam lobes, limiting some placements), however as mentioned I'm holding off until we see how durable they are, maybe I'll buy version 2.0
Stevo
It can be a problem in placements where you have placed the cam lobes very carefully because of irregularities in the rock (I do this very often on some rock types). However much you extend a cam you can't always predict the direction of load exactly and during a fall before the cam is fully loaded the lobes can move in to less ideal positions. Also I have found in horizontal cracks with shallow placements (for the cam size) twin axel cams can be hard to place and orientate the stem in the direction it will get loaded.
This doesn't bother me a huge amount (which is why I bought a full set of dragons, prior to this I owned a mixed set of cams including BD C4)
I like the look of the Totems (apart from in the smallest sizes where the workings look a bit large compared with the cam lobes, limiting some placements), however as mentioned I'm holding off until we see how durable they are, maybe I'll buy version 2.0
Stevo
Post edited at 11:57
In reply to CurlyStevo:
OK, you've lost me. I presumed you were referring to movement of the stem, perpendicular to the axle(s), which a single axle cam can do without moving the cam lobes, but a twin axle cam can't (except with a bit of give in the stem), since the stem is attached to both axles. Is that what you mean?
If the placement was so subtle that this was a worry, then any cam, single or twin axle is going to be marginal, since it would only take the slightest flick of the rope to one side to knock it out.
Either you're imagining something different to me or you don't worry enough about single axle cams walking in placements.
> It can be a problem in placements where you have placed the cam lobes very carefully because of irregularities in the rock (I do this very often on some rock types). However much you extend a cam you can't always predict the direction of load exactly and during a fall before the cam is fully loaded the lobes can move in to less ideal positions. Also I have found in horizontal cracks with shallow placements (for the cam size) twin axel cams can be hard to place and orientate the stem in the direction it will get loaded.
OK, you've lost me. I presumed you were referring to movement of the stem, perpendicular to the axle(s), which a single axle cam can do without moving the cam lobes, but a twin axle cam can't (except with a bit of give in the stem), since the stem is attached to both axles. Is that what you mean?
If the placement was so subtle that this was a worry, then any cam, single or twin axle is going to be marginal, since it would only take the slightest flick of the rope to one side to knock it out.
Either you're imagining something different to me or you don't worry enough about single axle cams walking in placements.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
"OK, you've lost me. I presumed you were referring to movement of the stem, perpendicular to the axle(s), which a single axle cam can do without moving the cam lobes, but a twin axle cam can't (except with a bit of give in the stem), since the stem is attached to both axles. Is that what you mean?"
Yes
"the placement was so subtle that this was a worry, then any cam, single or twin axle is going to be marginal, since it would only take the slightest flick of the rope to one side to knock it out."
This isn't true, a placement can be good as long as the lobes don't move but crap if they do. Obviously these placements need to be properly extending, but as pointed out this is a different issue to the lobes being able to rotate once placed.
"Either you're imagining something different to me or you don't worry enough about single axle cams walking in placements."
That seems to be a very dismissive and black or white viewpoint you're taking there and I believe there is a fair amount of grey area in between those options. My point was that there are disadvantages to the dual axel design NOT that these issues are a huge problem. Typically with competing products I tend to see a set of pro's and con's which I weigh up against each other, rather than attempting to justify my most recent purchase as always being a clear winner in all scenarios.
However you look at it the inability of the stem to rotate about the axel(s) (once placed) on dual axel cams is a disadvantage I guess its up to you how much importance you place on that.
"OK, you've lost me. I presumed you were referring to movement of the stem, perpendicular to the axle(s), which a single axle cam can do without moving the cam lobes, but a twin axle cam can't (except with a bit of give in the stem), since the stem is attached to both axles. Is that what you mean?"
Yes
"the placement was so subtle that this was a worry, then any cam, single or twin axle is going to be marginal, since it would only take the slightest flick of the rope to one side to knock it out."
This isn't true, a placement can be good as long as the lobes don't move but crap if they do. Obviously these placements need to be properly extending, but as pointed out this is a different issue to the lobes being able to rotate once placed.
"Either you're imagining something different to me or you don't worry enough about single axle cams walking in placements."
That seems to be a very dismissive and black or white viewpoint you're taking there and I believe there is a fair amount of grey area in between those options. My point was that there are disadvantages to the dual axel design NOT that these issues are a huge problem. Typically with competing products I tend to see a set of pro's and con's which I weigh up against each other, rather than attempting to justify my most recent purchase as always being a clear winner in all scenarios.
However you look at it the inability of the stem to rotate about the axel(s) (once placed) on dual axel cams is a disadvantage I guess its up to you how much importance you place on that.
Post edited at 12:32
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Absolutely. I was always describe that as a marginal placement, since once you've climbed past it you have no way of knowing if it's still any good or not.
Obviously these placements need to be properly extending, but as pointed out this is a different issue to the lobes being able to rotate once placed.
But side-to-side movement (i.e. parallel to the axle) is much, much more likely to move a marginal placement, since it will walk the cam, than movement perpendicular to the axles. And it's also much more likely to happen I would argue.
Well as a committed scaredy-cat who worries about gear a lot, I think the chances of a twin axle cam getting loaded at a different angle perpendicular to the axles, than the one it was placed to take (itself the result of bad extension), and subsequently moving into a substantially worse placement are almost non-existent. Particularly when compared to the chances of a cam walking in a placement that marginal.
So fair enough, in a very specific set of circumstances there is an additional disadvantage to twin axle cams over single axle ones. But in those same circumstances there are other things I think you should be worrying about a lot more. I'd suggest the added benefit of being even more robust when used passively (since you'd need the axles to fail, not just the cam stops), whilst also being marginal, might outweigh your concerns in the grand scheme of things perhaps?
> This isn't true, a placement can be good as long as the lobes don't move but crap if they do.
Absolutely. I was always describe that as a marginal placement, since once you've climbed past it you have no way of knowing if it's still any good or not.
Obviously these placements need to be properly extending, but as pointed out this is a different issue to the lobes being able to rotate once placed.
But side-to-side movement (i.e. parallel to the axle) is much, much more likely to move a marginal placement, since it will walk the cam, than movement perpendicular to the axles. And it's also much more likely to happen I would argue.
> That seems to be a very dismissive and black or white viewpoint you're taking there and I believe there is a fair amount of grey area in between those options. My point was that there are disadvantages to the dual axel design NOT that these issues are a huge problem.
Well as a committed scaredy-cat who worries about gear a lot, I think the chances of a twin axle cam getting loaded at a different angle perpendicular to the axles, than the one it was placed to take (itself the result of bad extension), and subsequently moving into a substantially worse placement are almost non-existent. Particularly when compared to the chances of a cam walking in a placement that marginal.
So fair enough, in a very specific set of circumstances there is an additional disadvantage to twin axle cams over single axle ones. But in those same circumstances there are other things I think you should be worrying about a lot more. I'd suggest the added benefit of being even more robust when used passively (since you'd need the axles to fail, not just the cam stops), whilst also being marginal, might outweigh your concerns in the grand scheme of things perhaps?
In reply to victim of mathematics:
"But side-to-side movement (i.e. parallel to the axle) is much, much more likely to move a marginal placement, since it will walk the cam, than movement perpendicular to the axles. And it's also much more likely to happen I would argue."
That depends massively on the route / line / other placements (and how they are extended). There are plenty of cam placements I've made and extended properly where side to side movement of one type or another is very unlikely to be an issue, but any movement of the cam lobes is likely to reduce the holding power of the placement.
IMO you are over worrying about cams walking - assuming you are extending them enough.
Also I think you are over stressing how specific the set of circumstances are in the situation I describe. When I place cams unless the rock is particularly parallel I normally aim to maximise cam lobe efficiency by placing the lobes in to groves, making sure they are away from cracks and that the lobes are not sitting on ridges. If simply attempting to rotate the cam stem about the axel can modify this its pretty clearly not ideal. IMO the reason many people see cams popping is often down to not extending them enough and treating them as plug and play when ideally you should pay attention to the precise positioning of the cam in the crack.
For the record I think we agree that the pros of added expansion range (and for me in the case of the dragons the doubled sling) are advantages that outweigh this disadvantage. If there was a cam available that was as durable as the camalots with the same or greater expansion range, but DID allow the stem to rotate about the axel(s) personally I'd more than likely see it as a superior design (to the current dual axel design), as long as the other comparable factors are at least equal.
Stevo
"But side-to-side movement (i.e. parallel to the axle) is much, much more likely to move a marginal placement, since it will walk the cam, than movement perpendicular to the axles. And it's also much more likely to happen I would argue."
That depends massively on the route / line / other placements (and how they are extended). There are plenty of cam placements I've made and extended properly where side to side movement of one type or another is very unlikely to be an issue, but any movement of the cam lobes is likely to reduce the holding power of the placement.
IMO you are over worrying about cams walking - assuming you are extending them enough.
Also I think you are over stressing how specific the set of circumstances are in the situation I describe. When I place cams unless the rock is particularly parallel I normally aim to maximise cam lobe efficiency by placing the lobes in to groves, making sure they are away from cracks and that the lobes are not sitting on ridges. If simply attempting to rotate the cam stem about the axel can modify this its pretty clearly not ideal. IMO the reason many people see cams popping is often down to not extending them enough and treating them as plug and play when ideally you should pay attention to the precise positioning of the cam in the crack.
For the record I think we agree that the pros of added expansion range (and for me in the case of the dragons the doubled sling) are advantages that outweigh this disadvantage. If there was a cam available that was as durable as the camalots with the same or greater expansion range, but DID allow the stem to rotate about the axel(s) personally I'd more than likely see it as a superior design (to the current dual axel design), as long as the other comparable factors are at least equal.
Stevo
Post edited at 12:54
In reply to CurlyStevo:
So you're thinking of a placement where side-to-side movement isn't likely to affect the overall security of the placement, whilst a small amount of up and down movement (for, it should be stressed, a small fraction of a second) does? I'm not sure I can even imagine what such a placement looks like, unless it's one where the cam could end up being pushed back into a passive placement, in which case there isn't a problem anyway.
I agree entirely with you about people not extending cams enough, and about the importance of trying to seat a cam in the best possible position. I disagree with you totally about twin axle cams being disadvantageous in any realistic, practical sense though.
So you're thinking of a placement where side-to-side movement isn't likely to affect the overall security of the placement, whilst a small amount of up and down movement (for, it should be stressed, a small fraction of a second) does? I'm not sure I can even imagine what such a placement looks like, unless it's one where the cam could end up being pushed back into a passive placement, in which case there isn't a problem anyway.
I agree entirely with you about people not extending cams enough, and about the importance of trying to seat a cam in the best possible position. I disagree with you totally about twin axle cams being disadvantageous in any realistic, practical sense though.
In my opinion the best cams to get at the moment are DMM 4CUs. They are strong light and cheap.
0-4 DMM 4cu (excluding 1.25 and 1.75)9 cams 13-100mm 1138g £256.5 all rated at 14KN
00-6 DMM Dragons 8 cams 13.6-114mm 1101g £465 9-14KN
0.3-4 Camalot C4 8 cams 13.8-114.7mm 1005g £458.92 10-14KN
Why would you not get 4cus?
0-4 DMM 4cu (excluding 1.25 and 1.75)9 cams 13-100mm 1138g £256.5 all rated at 14KN
00-6 DMM Dragons 8 cams 13.6-114mm 1101g £465 9-14KN
0.3-4 Camalot C4 8 cams 13.8-114.7mm 1005g £458.92 10-14KN
Why would you not get 4cus?
In reply to jhb0510:
Because twin stem cams are rubbish? Having all the cams together in the middle makes them very prone to walking.
And they're not very sexy, are they?
Because twin stem cams are rubbish? Having all the cams together in the middle makes them very prone to walking.
And they're not very sexy, are they?
In reply to victim of mathematics:
Perhaps I've not made my point very well. If the cam is extended enough so that side to side (or indeed up down movement) is highly unlikely to be an issue with respect to the rope tugging the cam (either from the climber climbing or indeed the rope flicking during a fall), the placement can still be poor if the cam lobes do move and this can occur when loaded due to rotational forces being applied to the axels on double stem cams. Seeing as the exact load direction is often impossible to predict and that dual axel cams will sometimes move the lobes of a cam due to the stem producing a rotational force on the axel(s) this is a con of the design. I suggest you try placing a Camalot in a crack and moving the stem to rotate the axles, the effect on the lobes and hence the placement is often pretty unpredictable and actually quite disturbing when you compare it to single axel cams.
Sometimes when a cam is good but really mustn't move at all I'll extend it - sometimes with a double sling! I'll often then place the next bit of gear on the other rope so that a fall is unlikely to interfere with the cam. That doesn't imply the cam is not to be trusted, just that the leader needs to be extra mindful of the placement not being interfered with, depending how bomber the placements above are, if they are not better than the cam then I may deliberately place them all on the other rope for a while to minimise potential movement of the cam.
"unless it's one where the cam could end up being pushed back into a passive placement, in which case there isn't a problem anyway."
Personally in the general case I consider cams that have walked open as sub optimal placements and generally I think it shows room for improvement in gear placement.
> "So you're thinking of a placement where side-to-side movement isn't likely to affect the overall security of the placement, whilst a small amount of up and down movement (for, it should be stressed, a small fraction of a second) does? "
Perhaps I've not made my point very well. If the cam is extended enough so that side to side (or indeed up down movement) is highly unlikely to be an issue with respect to the rope tugging the cam (either from the climber climbing or indeed the rope flicking during a fall), the placement can still be poor if the cam lobes do move and this can occur when loaded due to rotational forces being applied to the axels on double stem cams. Seeing as the exact load direction is often impossible to predict and that dual axel cams will sometimes move the lobes of a cam due to the stem producing a rotational force on the axel(s) this is a con of the design. I suggest you try placing a Camalot in a crack and moving the stem to rotate the axles, the effect on the lobes and hence the placement is often pretty unpredictable and actually quite disturbing when you compare it to single axel cams.
Sometimes when a cam is good but really mustn't move at all I'll extend it - sometimes with a double sling! I'll often then place the next bit of gear on the other rope so that a fall is unlikely to interfere with the cam. That doesn't imply the cam is not to be trusted, just that the leader needs to be extra mindful of the placement not being interfered with, depending how bomber the placements above are, if they are not better than the cam then I may deliberately place them all on the other rope for a while to minimise potential movement of the cam.
"unless it's one where the cam could end up being pushed back into a passive placement, in which case there isn't a problem anyway."
Personally in the general case I consider cams that have walked open as sub optimal placements and generally I think it shows room for improvement in gear placement.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
"Because twin stem cams are rubbish?"
Again an over simplification. I own some 4CU's along with a full set of dragons. There are placements the 4CU's will make bomber that the dragons won't even fit in to!
"Because twin stem cams are rubbish?"
Again an over simplification. I own some 4CU's along with a full set of dragons. There are placements the 4CU's will make bomber that the dragons won't even fit in to!
Post edited at 14:51
In reply to cheek to the rock:
Depends how tight money is.
On a budget I'd go for 4cu cams, they're very good, light, bargain price. I had a set for years and they lasted really well.
If I had a bit more cash I'd go for dragons or c4's. They're much nicer to use, much smoother.
I use dragons now.
I really liked the totems for smaller sizes, only got one so far though.
Depends how tight money is.
On a budget I'd go for 4cu cams, they're very good, light, bargain price. I had a set for years and they lasted really well.
If I had a bit more cash I'd go for dragons or c4's. They're much nicer to use, much smoother.
I use dragons now.
I really liked the totems for smaller sizes, only got one so far though.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I've placed a lot of cams. I've extended a lot of cams. Accordingly I've spent a lot of time waggling cams around in cracks and spent plenty of time thinking about ropework and gear placements. I've never seen anything which makes me worry about the problem you describe and even after having you describe it I'm still not worried in the slightest. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree about this one.
PS Please stop spelling it axel. That's something figure skaters do.
PPS A cam that's walked open by moving backwards into a placement is obviously sub-optimal (thanks for pointing that out), but I was envisaging a placement where walking sideways wasn't an issue, which suggests that the tipped-out cam isn't likely to go anywhere and would still work passively.
I've placed a lot of cams. I've extended a lot of cams. Accordingly I've spent a lot of time waggling cams around in cracks and spent plenty of time thinking about ropework and gear placements. I've never seen anything which makes me worry about the problem you describe and even after having you describe it I'm still not worried in the slightest. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree about this one.
PS Please stop spelling it axel. That's something figure skaters do.
PPS A cam that's walked open by moving backwards into a placement is obviously sub-optimal (thanks for pointing that out), but I was envisaging a placement where walking sideways wasn't an issue, which suggests that the tipped-out cam isn't likely to go anywhere and would still work passively.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
Please stop being pedantic wrt spelling, you understood my points and it makes them no less valid if I can spell as well as you or not!
With regards to you not noticing the issue I describe, I suggest you try doing it at ground level, you may then more worryingly notice the effect I describe on the sharp end.
Please stop being pedantic wrt spelling, you understood my points and it makes them no less valid if I can spell as well as you or not!
With regards to you not noticing the issue I describe, I suggest you try doing it at ground level, you may then more worryingly notice the effect I describe on the sharp end.
Post edited at 15:04
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Again, this is a little specialist. Lets imagine a horizontal break - for your hypothetical placement you need a widening of the break just wider than the 4 lobes of the 4CU, but narrower than those of the Dragon, but the break on either side of this widening still has to be wide enough for the ends of the axles to fit in.
There are placements where the only available thing that will fit is a car jack, or a length of 2x4, or a 6" nail. That doesn't make car jacks, bits of 2x4 or 6" nails sensible things for climbers to carry.
The rigidity inherent in the twin stem design, coupled with the narrowness of the heads (but without the usefulness of really narrow-headed single-stem cams like Aliens, except in rare placements like the one described above) makes twin-stemmed cams quite rubbish in my experience.
You seem to assume I've never owned or placed a cam. I don't know why.
> "Because twin stem cams are rubbish?"
> Again an over simplification. I own some 4CU's along with a full set of dragons. There are placements the 4CU's will make bomber that the dragons won't even fit in to!
Again, this is a little specialist. Lets imagine a horizontal break - for your hypothetical placement you need a widening of the break just wider than the 4 lobes of the 4CU, but narrower than those of the Dragon, but the break on either side of this widening still has to be wide enough for the ends of the axles to fit in.
There are placements where the only available thing that will fit is a car jack, or a length of 2x4, or a 6" nail. That doesn't make car jacks, bits of 2x4 or 6" nails sensible things for climbers to carry.
The rigidity inherent in the twin stem design, coupled with the narrowness of the heads (but without the usefulness of really narrow-headed single-stem cams like Aliens, except in rare placements like the one described above) makes twin-stemmed cams quite rubbish in my experience.
You seem to assume I've never owned or placed a cam. I don't know why.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I am well aware that an ability to spell is not necessarily correlated with an ability to construct coherent arguments or, more importantly, being right. In spite of being a massively tedious pedant I almost never correct peoples' spelling on here because I think it's quitetw*tty. But in a debate about axles specifically I couldn't take it any more. I'm sorry.
> Please stop being pedantic wrt spelling, you understood my points and it makes them no less valid if I can spell as well as you or not!
I am well aware that an ability to spell is not necessarily correlated with an ability to construct coherent arguments or, more importantly, being right. In spite of being a massively tedious pedant I almost never correct peoples' spelling on here because I think it's quitetw*tty. But in a debate about axles specifically I couldn't take it any more. I'm sorry.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
"Again, this is a little specialist. Lets imagine a horizontal break - for your hypothetical placement you need a widening of the break just wider than the 4 lobes of the 4CU, but narrower than those of the Dragon, but the break on either side of this widening still has to be wide enough for the ends of the axles to fit in."
How about a vertical shallow crack where the last lobe of a dragon won't fit in but all four lobes of the 4CU will? Or indeed a tight pod where a 4cu will fit in to in but a dragon will not. Or indeed an irregular placement where the lobes of a dragon just happen to have poor rock contact whilst a 4CU makes for a good placement. I've had all of these in the last year. Your argument is a bit like saying there is no point in carrying two types of nuts as any Walnut placement can not be improved in a worthwhile way by putting a rock in there (which is obviously cobblers)
You seem to reduce any argument I make along the lines of X can be improved on by Y, by saying X is either bomber or crap, if its crap Y will be crap, either that or you just say X works nearly all the time, when it doesn't work its so rare who cares about Y. Sorry but I just don't agree with this line of discussion!
"Again, this is a little specialist. Lets imagine a horizontal break - for your hypothetical placement you need a widening of the break just wider than the 4 lobes of the 4CU, but narrower than those of the Dragon, but the break on either side of this widening still has to be wide enough for the ends of the axles to fit in."
How about a vertical shallow crack where the last lobe of a dragon won't fit in but all four lobes of the 4CU will? Or indeed a tight pod where a 4cu will fit in to in but a dragon will not. Or indeed an irregular placement where the lobes of a dragon just happen to have poor rock contact whilst a 4CU makes for a good placement. I've had all of these in the last year. Your argument is a bit like saying there is no point in carrying two types of nuts as any Walnut placement can not be improved in a worthwhile way by putting a rock in there (which is obviously cobblers)
You seem to reduce any argument I make along the lines of X can be improved on by Y, by saying X is either bomber or crap, if its crap Y will be crap, either that or you just say X works nearly all the time, when it doesn't work its so rare who cares about Y. Sorry but I just don't agree with this line of discussion!
In reply to CurlyStevo:
At the grades most of us are climbing at, there's always another placement option so no real need to worry about dodgy cam placements.
At the grades most of us are climbing at, there's always another placement option so no real need to worry about dodgy cam placements.
Post edited at 15:19
In reply to jezb1:
Are you really trying to tell me you have never climbed above dubious gear?
I wouldn't necessarily call a cam placement dodgy if its bomber as long as the lobes don't move much before getting loaded.
Are you really trying to tell me you have never climbed above dubious gear?
I wouldn't necessarily call a cam placement dodgy if its bomber as long as the lobes don't move much before getting loaded.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Sigh.
The important point, from my perspective is that you need space for the junctions between the stems and the axle, on either side of the cam lobes. It's not just about the fact that the lobes are closer together, the whole unit is wider than an equivalent sized Dragon (or basically any single stem cam) and you have to be able to fit that extra width somewhere, which severely limits the number of these placements.
The crux of all of this is that there are some situations where one thing will work and another won't, and situations where the converse is true. The question when weighing up the merits of buying any piece of gear (or deciding to take it on a route having bought it) is whether the number of times that it will fit where other things won't (or fit better) is worth the expense (or weight).
As I have said I am a committed scaredy cat. I also like owning shiny things and as a consequence I have about 30 different cams, in all makes, shapes, sizes and designs. In my considered opinion, based on probably tens of thousands of cam placements in all sorts of rock types, the benefits of twin-stemmed cams do not outweigh the down sides. To the point that I never use them and would only recommend somebody buys them if they really can't afford anything else.
You may have a different perspective on the cost/benefit equation. Some people clearly do, or nobody would sell any twin-stemmed cams. You're welcome to try and apply logic to back up your case, but don't assume that I'm speaking from a position of ignorance.
> How about a vertical shallow crack where the last lobe of a dragon won't fit in but all four lobes of the 4CU will? Or indeed a tight pod where a 4cu will fit in to in but a dragon will not. Or indeed an irregular placement where the lobes of a dragon just happen to have poor rock contact whilst a 4CU makes for a good placement. I've had all of these in the last year. Your argument is a bit like saying there is no point in carrying two types of nuts as any Walnut placement can not be improved in a worthwhile way by putting a rock in there (which is obviously cobblers)
Sigh.
The important point, from my perspective is that you need space for the junctions between the stems and the axle, on either side of the cam lobes. It's not just about the fact that the lobes are closer together, the whole unit is wider than an equivalent sized Dragon (or basically any single stem cam) and you have to be able to fit that extra width somewhere, which severely limits the number of these placements.
> You seem to reduce any argument I make along the lines of X can be improved on by Y, by saying X is either bomber or crap, if its crap Y will be crap, either that or you just say X works nearly all the time, when it doesn't work its so rare who cares about Y. Sorry but I just don't agree with this line of discussion!
The crux of all of this is that there are some situations where one thing will work and another won't, and situations where the converse is true. The question when weighing up the merits of buying any piece of gear (or deciding to take it on a route having bought it) is whether the number of times that it will fit where other things won't (or fit better) is worth the expense (or weight).
As I have said I am a committed scaredy cat. I also like owning shiny things and as a consequence I have about 30 different cams, in all makes, shapes, sizes and designs. In my considered opinion, based on probably tens of thousands of cam placements in all sorts of rock types, the benefits of twin-stemmed cams do not outweigh the down sides. To the point that I never use them and would only recommend somebody buys them if they really can't afford anything else.
You may have a different perspective on the cost/benefit equation. Some people clearly do, or nobody would sell any twin-stemmed cams. You're welcome to try and apply logic to back up your case, but don't assume that I'm speaking from a position of ignorance.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Have I ever thought "shit I wish I had another brand cam", no never.
Have I ever thought "that gears a bit crap, hope the next ones good", yes of course.
Am I a bit over cautious and extend cams more often than not, yes.
Have I ever continued worrying about it and over analysing it after the the climb, no.
Do I think you're overly worried about it all, yes
Have I ever thought "shit I wish I had another brand cam", no never.
Have I ever thought "that gears a bit crap, hope the next ones good", yes of course.
Am I a bit over cautious and extend cams more often than not, yes.
Have I ever continued worrying about it and over analysing it after the the climb, no.
Do I think you're overly worried about it all, yes
In reply to cheek to the rock:
So assuming you're mostly climbing on Dolerite/Rhyolite...
Do the wild country cams look like this:
https://www.mtntools.com/cat/rclimb/cams/images/wc_TechFriend.jpg
(Tech Friend)
or this?:
http://www.hitchnhike.co.uk/acatalog/wild_country_helium_friend.jpg
(Helium Friend)
IMHO, I don't think it makes a significant difference whether the cams are single or double axles. The single axle will be slightly lighter but it will have slightly less expansion range.
The double axle will be slightly heavier and will have slightly more expansion range.
The heliums have slightly longer stems(longer reach/deeper placements/easier extraction) and slightly stiffer springs (less chance of walking).
The camalots have a smoother trigger action and a nylon sling (slightly more abrasion resistant).
Can you choose between any sizes in each set, or is set numbers?
For starting out, you maybe want size 1,2,3 friend / 0.5,1,(2 or 3) camalot
So assuming you're mostly climbing on Dolerite/Rhyolite...
Do the wild country cams look like this:
https://www.mtntools.com/cat/rclimb/cams/images/wc_TechFriend.jpg
(Tech Friend)
or this?:
http://www.hitchnhike.co.uk/acatalog/wild_country_helium_friend.jpg
(Helium Friend)
IMHO, I don't think it makes a significant difference whether the cams are single or double axles. The single axle will be slightly lighter but it will have slightly less expansion range.
The double axle will be slightly heavier and will have slightly more expansion range.
The heliums have slightly longer stems(longer reach/deeper placements/easier extraction) and slightly stiffer springs (less chance of walking).
The camalots have a smoother trigger action and a nylon sling (slightly more abrasion resistant).
Can you choose between any sizes in each set, or is set numbers?
For starting out, you maybe want size 1,2,3 friend / 0.5,1,(2 or 3) camalot
In reply to victim of mathematics:
Because twin stem cams are rubbish? Mmm not a great argument.
Twin stem cams can be easier to place than single axle cams. I have found that on occasion the cam lobes cam rotate around the axle.
Perhaps I am just good at placing cams but I have never had one of my 4cus walk. Or perhaps as they are such good value I can afford to carry more cams and therefore am able to place the one that is the correct size.
They are lighter stronger and cheaper, does sexy come into it?
Because twin stem cams are rubbish? Mmm not a great argument.
Twin stem cams can be easier to place than single axle cams. I have found that on occasion the cam lobes cam rotate around the axle.
Perhaps I am just good at placing cams but I have never had one of my 4cus walk. Or perhaps as they are such good value I can afford to carry more cams and therefore am able to place the one that is the correct size.
They are lighter stronger and cheaper, does sexy come into it?
In reply to victim of mathematics:
That is not so:
A size 6 (68 - 114)dragon cam is 66.1mm wide.
A size 4 (64-100) 4cu is 65mm wide.
I would suggest that having a cam 1.1mm narrower would make a difference but I don't think that having the disadvantage of carrying a wider Dragon would severely limit the placements!
For me strength and weight are the 2 most important issues.
On my basic rack I carry a set of 9 4CUs, If I am doing a route which I think I am going to need to double up I carry 3-6 Dragons if I am going to need larger. (Being a scaredy cat I would have thought that you would shy away from the weaker smaller Dragons and C4s).
If I am going to need smaller I Carry 6 0-1.75 3 Cus, which have a really narrow head width and are also rated at 14KN. If I need some thing really small I have a set of Zeros. I do not use them very often as the 3 and 4 are only rated 6KN and do not fill me with confidence. The 5 and 6 are rated at 10KN, but as they are more or less the same size as the 0 and 0.5 3&4Cus which are rated 14KN why use them instead?
That is not so:
A size 6 (68 - 114)dragon cam is 66.1mm wide.
A size 4 (64-100) 4cu is 65mm wide.
I would suggest that having a cam 1.1mm narrower would make a difference but I don't think that having the disadvantage of carrying a wider Dragon would severely limit the placements!
For me strength and weight are the 2 most important issues.
On my basic rack I carry a set of 9 4CUs, If I am doing a route which I think I am going to need to double up I carry 3-6 Dragons if I am going to need larger. (Being a scaredy cat I would have thought that you would shy away from the weaker smaller Dragons and C4s).
If I am going to need smaller I Carry 6 0-1.75 3 Cus, which have a really narrow head width and are also rated at 14KN. If I need some thing really small I have a set of Zeros. I do not use them very often as the 3 and 4 are only rated 6KN and do not fill me with confidence. The 5 and 6 are rated at 10KN, but as they are more or less the same size as the 0 and 0.5 3&4Cus which are rated 14KN why use them instead?
In reply to cheek to the rock:
Good Choice in my Opinion.
> Im going for the 4c's and im gonna get 0.3/0.7/2 Thanks
Good Choice in my Opinion.
In reply to cheek to the rock:
Just to add my 2pence worth. Its my firm conviction based on my personal experience that up to around 1.5 friend, or the purple twin axle cams, you are better off with single axle cams for several reasons.
1. Generally at this size you are after head width or a lack there of. Narrow headwidth allows you to place cams in small round pockets. Mostly the twin axle cams have a wider head width, the exception being the new x4s
2. At this size the cam lobes on genuine twin axles (not the small x4s) are left with a very small amount of material connecting the inner and outer section of the cam lobe together, which, when placed in a marginal, more vertical placement, like you could place a zero friend in, they are far weaker than a solid cam lobe as per single axle cams, and potentially can snap due to the torsional forces involved. This is borne out by both anacdotal evidence I've heard and also test results conducted by a collegue.
3. The improvement you see in range is pretty marginal at this size. You also will find more placements at this size, so the fact that you are carrying an extra cam atthis size because of the different range imo is an advantage.
4. Below this size a micro cam style with a flexible stem is far more suitable. By their nature the placements can be shallower and more finiky and prone to walking by virtue of weaker springs and the reduced range meaning that if they do walk they are more likely to walk into a wider crack and become disengahed meaning you will be relying on passive strength. A flexible stem will help reduce the likelyhood of this happening.
In response to the op, I would look at 0.75 and 1 and either 0.5 or 2 in twin axle, or their equivalent in a single axle... These will give you a base of cams to work with and to add to and will be work horse pieces. If you are strapped for cash the 4cus arent horrific. They are servicable and you can always fling them on ebay after a few years.
Just to add my 2pence worth. Its my firm conviction based on my personal experience that up to around 1.5 friend, or the purple twin axle cams, you are better off with single axle cams for several reasons.
1. Generally at this size you are after head width or a lack there of. Narrow headwidth allows you to place cams in small round pockets. Mostly the twin axle cams have a wider head width, the exception being the new x4s
2. At this size the cam lobes on genuine twin axles (not the small x4s) are left with a very small amount of material connecting the inner and outer section of the cam lobe together, which, when placed in a marginal, more vertical placement, like you could place a zero friend in, they are far weaker than a solid cam lobe as per single axle cams, and potentially can snap due to the torsional forces involved. This is borne out by both anacdotal evidence I've heard and also test results conducted by a collegue.
3. The improvement you see in range is pretty marginal at this size. You also will find more placements at this size, so the fact that you are carrying an extra cam atthis size because of the different range imo is an advantage.
4. Below this size a micro cam style with a flexible stem is far more suitable. By their nature the placements can be shallower and more finiky and prone to walking by virtue of weaker springs and the reduced range meaning that if they do walk they are more likely to walk into a wider crack and become disengahed meaning you will be relying on passive strength. A flexible stem will help reduce the likelyhood of this happening.
In response to the op, I would look at 0.75 and 1 and either 0.5 or 2 in twin axle, or their equivalent in a single axle... These will give you a base of cams to work with and to add to and will be work horse pieces. If you are strapped for cash the 4cus arent horrific. They are servicable and you can always fling them on ebay after a few years.
In reply to mike kann:
I think I agree with all of that. I probably wasn't clear enough before when I said I'd buy a new set of double axle cams. I don't see the point below purple size (Camalot 0.75ish).
Your point 2 is interesting. Not something I'd thought about before.
I think I agree with all of that. I probably wasn't clear enough before when I said I'd buy a new set of double axle cams. I don't see the point below purple size (Camalot 0.75ish).
Your point 2 is interesting. Not something I'd thought about before.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
To put it mildly, the physics on twin axle cams is all wrong. When you break them you get nasty loadings, with the axles being bent all over the shop, which is a major weakness as the lobes will be side loaded more readily than single axle in which the lobe forces transmit to the axle more or less cancel one another out. The inherent stability of a single axle does make for a better loading scenario. However you've got to be going some to ever see this loading actually arise in practice. Apart from like i say when the placement is sub optimal. You'd be hard pushed to find a crack shallow enough to force you to place a cam horizontally in a vertical crack above a 0.5 cam. Below that as the cams head width decreases less just due to the requisite width of cam lobes and the stem termination, you are more likely to find a bad placement which you make on the basis that its better than nowt. If you look at a 0.4 camalot, the head width is a good 5-10 mm wider than some on the market which further exacerbates the problem added to which the stem termination tends to be longer forcing you to twist the cam in its placement. All I will say is beware. They are weaker than you'd think.
To put it mildly, the physics on twin axle cams is all wrong. When you break them you get nasty loadings, with the axles being bent all over the shop, which is a major weakness as the lobes will be side loaded more readily than single axle in which the lobe forces transmit to the axle more or less cancel one another out. The inherent stability of a single axle does make for a better loading scenario. However you've got to be going some to ever see this loading actually arise in practice. Apart from like i say when the placement is sub optimal. You'd be hard pushed to find a crack shallow enough to force you to place a cam horizontally in a vertical crack above a 0.5 cam. Below that as the cams head width decreases less just due to the requisite width of cam lobes and the stem termination, you are more likely to find a bad placement which you make on the basis that its better than nowt. If you look at a 0.4 camalot, the head width is a good 5-10 mm wider than some on the market which further exacerbates the problem added to which the stem termination tends to be longer forcing you to twist the cam in its placement. All I will say is beware. They are weaker than you'd think.
In reply to cheek to the rock:
Cheeky little trick is to google the size/make etc of the cams you want and display in google shopping find the cheapest in a uk mainland retailer (not on ebay) go to gooutdoors with the web address, as long as they have that make/model they will beat the price by 10%. Ive now done it with a few things bt got 3 c4's for about £115. From a cheapskate yorkshireman
Cheeky little trick is to google the size/make etc of the cams you want and display in google shopping find the cheapest in a uk mainland retailer (not on ebay) go to gooutdoors with the web address, as long as they have that make/model they will beat the price by 10%. Ive now done it with a few things bt got 3 c4's for about £115. From a cheapskate yorkshireman
In reply to Ginger_Dave:
what retailer was it that you took the web address of please???
I like the sound of this,im not shy lol
what retailer was it that you took the web address of please???
I like the sound of this,im not shy lol
In reply to mike kann:
The reason i picked the twin axle's is becasue i climbed with an old guy who,s been climbing a life time and he told me that he wouldnt go back to single axle cams as the twins where so much easyier to place.He thought they were a great improvement.I watch him set up a stance and he equalised 3 placements quicker than the M.I.A guys ive climbed with, so i got it in my head that there the cams i want.Im having second thoughts now.I dont want to buy the one's below 0.75 if they are not as strong as a single cam.My main consern is strenth and reliability.Can i ask what 3 cams would you first buy?
The reason i picked the twin axle's is becasue i climbed with an old guy who,s been climbing a life time and he told me that he wouldnt go back to single axle cams as the twins where so much easyier to place.He thought they were a great improvement.I watch him set up a stance and he equalised 3 placements quicker than the M.I.A guys ive climbed with, so i got it in my head that there the cams i want.Im having second thoughts now.I dont want to buy the one's below 0.75 if they are not as strong as a single cam.My main consern is strenth and reliability.Can i ask what 3 cams would you first buy?
Post edited at 19:48
In reply to cheek to the rock:
hello
the double axels are useful, however needlesports were selling 4CUs which i think are excellent for £30 a pop.
you'll get used to estimating the size of your kit that goes into the cracks your looking at so everyone develops a strong preference for whatever they use habitually.
I personally find the extra range most useful at 0.75 and below.
have fun
al
hello
the double axels are useful, however needlesports were selling 4CUs which i think are excellent for £30 a pop.
you'll get used to estimating the size of your kit that goes into the cracks your looking at so everyone develops a strong preference for whatever they use habitually.
I personally find the extra range most useful at 0.75 and below.
have fun
al
In reply to alasdair19:
Hey al,
There so many conflicting veiws,its hard to sus whats what.I was going to ask you on fb but there message system is crap,i only got your answer the day after.I also wanted to know what size sling i should get for equalising the gear.Go outdoors are doing a 4 meter 10mm dyneema for £22. 165 grams is that to long? You know my climbing level.what size cams should i get first?
Hey al,
There so many conflicting veiws,its hard to sus whats what.I was going to ask you on fb but there message system is crap,i only got your answer the day after.I also wanted to know what size sling i should get for equalising the gear.Go outdoors are doing a 4 meter 10mm dyneema for £22. 165 grams is that to long? You know my climbing level.what size cams should i get first?
In reply to cheek to the rock:
Not sure what website i used cos it was a while back but looks like http://www.theoutdoorshop.com/showpart_largeDD.asp isn't a bad price.
If you read gooutdoors price guarantee first though
http://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/price-guarantee
Only other thing to check out joe brown for dmm cams
http://www.joe-brown.com/dmm_cams . 3 dragons (also twin) for £120
Not sure what website i used cos it was a while back but looks like http://www.theoutdoorshop.com/showpart_largeDD.asp isn't a bad price.
If you read gooutdoors price guarantee first though
http://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/price-guarantee
Only other thing to check out joe brown for dmm cams
http://www.joe-brown.com/dmm_cams . 3 dragons (also twin) for £120
In reply to mike kann:
Camalots are perhaps the most popular cams in the world, given the lack of chatter about camalots failing, I'd consider that to be a gross exaggeration rather than a mild statement.
(Of the cams I've considered only aliens had a notable reputation for failure)
> To put it mildly, the physics on twin axle cams is all wrong.
Camalots are perhaps the most popular cams in the world, given the lack of chatter about camalots failing, I'd consider that to be a gross exaggeration rather than a mild statement.
(Of the cams I've considered only aliens had a notable reputation for failure)
Post edited at 10:44
In reply to cheek to the rock:
I've used many different makes and types of cams over the years since Wild Country brought out the original solid stem Friends.
Nowadays I'm replacing the old ones with DMM 4CU's, which I find really easy to place and retrieve. They don't seem to walk in cracks as much as some others. I think their extendable sling helps with that.
They are on offer here http://www.joe-brown.com/outdoor-equipment/dmm_4cu_cams__any_3_deal
I've used many different makes and types of cams over the years since Wild Country brought out the original solid stem Friends.
Nowadays I'm replacing the old ones with DMM 4CU's, which I find really easy to place and retrieve. They don't seem to walk in cracks as much as some others. I think their extendable sling helps with that.
They are on offer here http://www.joe-brown.com/outdoor-equipment/dmm_4cu_cams__any_3_deal
In reply to cheek to the rock:
PS. I bought 1, 2 and 3 first. I'd do so again if starting from scratch.
PS. I bought 1, 2 and 3 first. I'd do so again if starting from scratch.
In reply to cheek to the rock:
maybe get one, but i don't carry one. Your rope is excellent for equalising anchors.
if going for old style eg 4CUs then a 0.5,1.5,2.5.
camalots get the smallest then one 2 sizes up, then another 2 sizes above fill in the gaps when funds allow. do you have bid hexs?
al
maybe get one, but i don't carry one. Your rope is excellent for equalising anchors.
if going for old style eg 4CUs then a 0.5,1.5,2.5.
camalots get the smallest then one 2 sizes up, then another 2 sizes above fill in the gaps when funds allow. do you have bid hexs?
al
In reply to alasdair19:
Im going to get the camalots while i have the money,then get the bigger single axle sometime before spring from my local climbing wall,he sell's 3 for £99.I have 1-4 dmm torque nuts.Im waiting on a new harness,set of wall nuts and 5 quickdraws and a 4cu cam,i think its a 2.Ive bought them off a guy on here through paypal.I already have a set of dmm nuts 10 quickdraws 6 screwgates 4 slings and them old clogs and nuts off ebay.I need prusik cord and a thin rucksack and im thinking about 2 half ropes if the work keeps coming in.All i need then is winter to feck off
Im going to get the camalots while i have the money,then get the bigger single axle sometime before spring from my local climbing wall,he sell's 3 for £99.I have 1-4 dmm torque nuts.Im waiting on a new harness,set of wall nuts and 5 quickdraws and a 4cu cam,i think its a 2.Ive bought them off a guy on here through paypal.I already have a set of dmm nuts 10 quickdraws 6 screwgates 4 slings and them old clogs and nuts off ebay.I need prusik cord and a thin rucksack and im thinking about 2 half ropes if the work keeps coming in.All i need then is winter to feck off
In reply to needvert:
You can think what you like. That doesn't make it incorrect. I am not saying that camalots are unreliable. They are reliable. What I'm saying is that as an engineer, the loadings you expose the axles to are more complex and less desirable in a twin axle than a single axle. That said you can engineer it to be strong enough. However there are loading modes in which twin axles become more prone to failure. Typically a twin axle lobe will crush down until it interferes with the axle going through the lobe - the lack of material in the middle of the cam lobe being the root cause. This is mostly not an issue, unless you start sideloading the cam lobes heavily due to excessive deformation of the axle, which is simply more likely to occur due to the lower level of support and the fact that the opposing forces are not cancelled out in a twin axle than a single axle. This particularly occurs when a cam is placed vertically in a sub optimal placement like those I described above, when the physics a twin axle cam are "all wrong". And when the cam lobe becomes very small the situation IMO becomes untenable. But then that's my opinion. I'm sure you will tell me otherwise, I personally will never place my small twin axle cams in that type of situation as I know how low a force can make the lobes snap.
You can think what you like. That doesn't make it incorrect. I am not saying that camalots are unreliable. They are reliable. What I'm saying is that as an engineer, the loadings you expose the axles to are more complex and less desirable in a twin axle than a single axle. That said you can engineer it to be strong enough. However there are loading modes in which twin axles become more prone to failure. Typically a twin axle lobe will crush down until it interferes with the axle going through the lobe - the lack of material in the middle of the cam lobe being the root cause. This is mostly not an issue, unless you start sideloading the cam lobes heavily due to excessive deformation of the axle, which is simply more likely to occur due to the lower level of support and the fact that the opposing forces are not cancelled out in a twin axle than a single axle. This particularly occurs when a cam is placed vertically in a sub optimal placement like those I described above, when the physics a twin axle cam are "all wrong". And when the cam lobe becomes very small the situation IMO becomes untenable. But then that's my opinion. I'm sure you will tell me otherwise, I personally will never place my small twin axle cams in that type of situation as I know how low a force can make the lobes snap.
In reply to cheek to the rock:
As I said above, I would get 0.75 upwards in twin axle, maybe the 0.5 too. the 0.5, 0.75, 1 and 2 are great sizes...
As I said above, I would get 0.75 upwards in twin axle, maybe the 0.5 too. the 0.5, 0.75, 1 and 2 are great sizes...
In reply to cheek to the rock:
In case it helps, I have the a set of each of the following:
rigid friends, flexible friends, camalot C4, dragons, metolius offsets, totems, WC zeros, plus various other historic cams
These are my feelings:
I only take the rigid friends if I really need to.
Nothing wrong with the flexible friends, but I much prefer the camalots.
I find twin ax-style cams are easier to place fast and get stuck less often.
I carry the dragons on moderate British trad because I like the extending slings.
I'm not sure why, but I find the camalots better than the dragons if I have to place them fast. It might be the thumb loop.
The totems are great for aid or as a second set.
The metroilus offsets I only carry for aid
The zeros I use but for some reason they don't give me as much confidence as other small cams. This is probably unfair on the zeros.
I prefer the size 5 and 6 friends than the same sized camalots.
I have not used Camalot X4s
If I was buying my first cams I would buy a set of camalots or dragons. Then if buying a second set the totems.
In case it helps, I have the a set of each of the following:
rigid friends, flexible friends, camalot C4, dragons, metolius offsets, totems, WC zeros, plus various other historic cams
These are my feelings:
I only take the rigid friends if I really need to.
Nothing wrong with the flexible friends, but I much prefer the camalots.
I find twin ax-style cams are easier to place fast and get stuck less often.
I carry the dragons on moderate British trad because I like the extending slings.
I'm not sure why, but I find the camalots better than the dragons if I have to place them fast. It might be the thumb loop.
The totems are great for aid or as a second set.
The metroilus offsets I only carry for aid
The zeros I use but for some reason they don't give me as much confidence as other small cams. This is probably unfair on the zeros.
I prefer the size 5 and 6 friends than the same sized camalots.
I have not used Camalot X4s
If I was buying my first cams I would buy a set of camalots or dragons. Then if buying a second set the totems.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...