UKC

Which of the two is the better, Black Diamond Camelot #4 or DMM Dragon #6?
Or maybe there is a better one than these?
Why?
Thanks for any help

In reply to sean1:

I like my camalot more than my dragon. others may disagree.

In reply to sean1:

They are very similar, so I guess it should come down to the best deal you can get...

In reply to sean1:

Guinness or lager?? It's a personal choice, sometimes guided by what you feel like at the time.

In reply to sean1:

Got both - camalots seem far more bomber - I've taken lead falls on dragons and camalots - I managed to bend the lobes on a dragon - see my profile for details

In reply to sean1:

Do you want to buy cams made in China or Wales?

In reply to jezb1:

I suspect he wants to buy the best, and that'd be the Camalots. That's why they rarely do deals on them, because they're extremely good. Go for Camalots, you won't regret it

In reply to Ciderslider:


It'd be interesting to hear how you managed to do that to a dragon - I've got a rack of them and would be interested to learn from what damaged that one.

From the photo it looks like its the stem thats bent, and that it might have been loaded parallel to the cam axle, rather than perpendicular? If so, it's potentially hard to criticise the gear for getting trashed if it is loaded in a direction it's not designed for? (although we all know that we sometimes have to bend the rules when it comes to placements!)

Looks like it did its job though and hopefully it stopped a high speed arse/floor interface!

Mike.

In reply to sean1:



Im a fan of DMM stuff as a rule, but my trusted local purveyor of all things climbing reckons the Camalot C4s are the dogs knackers currently. He Knows his stuff, So thats what i go for.

In reply to jezb1:

Given the excellent quality and efficiency of decent Chinese based production plants, I'd say the inference you're making is unwarranted.

In reply to MischaHY:


Nothing to do with quality.

Camalots are ace.

I'd rather buy local though so I have Dragons. I don't think there's much in it really.

In reply to MischaHY:

try telling wild country that

In reply to andy.smythe:

Ehem. 'Decent'.

In reply to slacky:

Yes it doesn't really show as the bent part of one of the grey metal lobes is not shown on the photo - have tried to upload another but have given up tonight.

In reply to Otis:
Bottom line it was down to me and DMM were absolutely brilliant - it was on embankment 2 at millstone - I was clucking and poked it straight in - not at 45 degrees and didn't extend it - the fall wasn't massive - and the badly placed cam did a brilliant job ! obviously the weight of my fat old arse and the cam not moving - something had to give
The footage of the fall was captured on video - it's on my you tube 1battybat

In reply to sean1:

I think that the bottom line is both DMM and black diamond products are absolutely brilliant - it's down to personal preference

In reply to Ciderslider:

Cheers for the reply. Just had a peek at the video - am pleased for you that the cam held, otherwise you'd have ended up singing soprano!!! :-D

In reply to sean1:

It's down to whether you want a thumb loop or not, I find the thumb loops easier to handle. I always extend cams so the double sing on Dragons is superfluous for me.

In reply to Otis:

Yeh, I was cutting my teeth on VS at the time and came up against embankment 2 (which is a bit of a bastard) - it was only a cheese grater and a lesson learned - I've since done the route - but took a big whipper off the second pitch (held perfectly by a little red dragon)

In reply to Firestarter:

Which is the Guinness?

In reply to Ciderslider:

Did you replace it with another Dragon or a camelot?

In reply to sean1:
Does the Dragon #6 handle good without a thumb loop ?
How far does the sling extend?

In reply to sean1:

Dragon lobes are thinner than Camalots, I think I quite like the extra contact.

In reply to sean1:
DMM very kindly gave me a new one (and the old one as well) top company !
But I use camalots more or less exclusively

In reply to Ciderslider:
Well there you go then. Any cam placed badly will either pull out or get damaged. Keep it Welsh I say. I like the extendable tape loop. I find you can reduce the number of quick draws you have to carry.
Just bought a set of DMM offset wires. Excellent bit if kit.

In reply to sean1:

I've put a picture on my profile now which show the bent lobe better - not sure how to put the link on this message

In reply to sean1:

I'd say keep it welsh as well and have a set of dragons that are first choice, but Black Diamond just replaced the slings in all my camalots, some ten years old, replaced any dodgy trigger wires and all it cost me was postage to the US. Awesome customer service.

In reply to humptydumpty:
If the rock doesn't give the width of the lobe has zero effect on grip / friction. In real life where rock does give I still think the jury is out. Thinner lobes in perfectly parallel cracks and soft rock will be more likely to crumble but in more irregular cracks as is the norm the thinner lobers are better able to get in the grooves / shallow scoops of the rock whilst fatter ones are more likely to be sitting on the top of the bumps which is exactly the bit of rock that is likely to crumble.

Also bare in mind the camalots have a camming angle of around 14.5 degrees and the dragons are the almost industry standard of 13.75, the smaller camming angle does have a slighlty smaller expansion range but it also grips more.

In reply to Ciderslider:
Hey mate,
Whilst I can see why you got put off dragons a bit it seems likely you would also have bent a camalot in the same cirumstances.

I don't want to post up here as I don't think its really fair to post pics up of damaged kit when it was maybe down to user error but if you google bent camalot lobes and then click images you'll find tonnes of hits.

Stevo

In reply to PaulTanton:

I think I made it very clear that the damage was down to my bad placement (due to panic/lack of experience). Ive also made it clear that I personally prefer camalots, and that is just my own personal preference.

I would totally agree with you on the offsets - they are a fantastic piece of kit (and I never leave the ground without them)

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Mate,

I have absolutely no problems at all with DMM or dragons (if people read the whole thread that is abundantly clear).

I've also made it VERY clear that the reason the kit got damaged was down to my bad placement due to my inexperience and the fact that I was pumped and starting to panic - hands up anyone who hasn't made a mistake under those circumstances !

So to sum up 1. Dragons are just as good as camalots and I just happen to prefer the latter (for no real reason other than the fact that they are built more like russian tanks.
2. I've no doubt than any kit will fail under the right circumstances. (bad use or otherwise).
3. I love DMM and the Welsh
4. I hate it when I'm misunderstood

I think that makes it clear - sorry to sound so grumpy (but I've just seen the forecast for derbyshire next weekend)

Stevo - as a footnote that 0.75 camalot that I placed in the horizontal break prior to the crux of left unconquerable and took the full force of my fat arse didn't have a mark on it - so either my gear placement is getting better or the wee Russian tank did it's job

In reply to sean1:

I LOVE DMM but I also love camalots

In reply to Ciderslider:
Mate I'm sorry the weather forecast is against you but hey Cest la vie - maybe it will give me a chance to get out with you another weekend soon instead

I don't wanna seem pedantic but I did read the thread and all your posts and you opened with:

"In reply to sean1:

Got both - camalots seem far more bomber - I've taken lead falls on dragons and camalots - I managed to bend the lobes on a dragon - see my profile for details"

It seems to me that your experience of bending a dragon has lead you to beleive they aren't as bomber as the camalots. I realise the way most people brains work that way and given you've bent a dragon and not a camalot (yet) that you'll think camalots are more bomber, partially as they have more metal on them so look more sturdy. However do bare in mind camalot lobes are CNCed and dragons are hot forged, and hot forging does produce a stronger component so less metal is required.

My opinion is your fall would probably have bent a camalot in the same cirumstance and there is no scientific evidence I'm aware of that the camalots are more bomber. Try googling bent camalot you'll be suprised!

In any case its better that a lobe bend than snap as atleast if its bent it may still work and also softer alloys will bite in to the rock better.

You can't compare falling on a text book 0.75 camalot placement in a horizontal break aligned to the direction of fall with falling on a large blue dragon placment in a vertical crack you'd aligned horizontally, they are completely different cirumstances!

In reply to Ciderslider:
PS what have you got against the welsh

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Mate, because I'm a bit left handed and not that bright I suppose that I think that the camalots are more bomber because of their more solid build - I fully appreciate that both dragons and camalots are both equally good/strong - obviously both are fully rated - and in the end it's down to personal preference. I just think that if I was looking at a big lead fall I would rather do it on a camalot (for no actual reason). Having said that I'd have no problems taking a whipper on any of your beloved dragons

Ps you're a dragon lover

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Do you want some ?? Name your car park !!!!


Ps My first love was a girl from Wales - Mary Evans from Newcastle Emlyn

In reply to Ciderslider:
>Ps you're a dragon lover

Well I have owned camalot C4s (in a rack of mixed cams) in the past but I prefered dragons so sold them on (after using them for many years).

>Do you wants some ?? Name your car park !!!!

Sounds a bit dodgey to me I think I'll give it a miss

Fingers crossed the weather for the weekend clears up......

In reply to Ciderslider:

My first love was a girl from Wales...


I feel cheated!

I Thought that was going to be the first Line for a Witty Limerick.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Not that kind of fist action stevo - I meant a fight

In reply to Choss:

My first love was a young girl from Wales, but the farmer had not clipped her nails ...

Sorry that's about the best I could come up with

In reply to Ciderslider:

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/c4-with-kinked-stem-still-safe/107215044

The O.P is an idiot, but further down there is some worrying stuff.

In reply to Ciderslider:



Fixed that for you, don't be shy

In reply to jezb1:

If I was to go to the dark side Jez I think it would have to be a big butch fella from North Wales with big feet

In reply to jonnie3430:

That's a good deal. I've got a 0.75 that I'd like to get the sling replaced on.

In reply to sean1:

Dammit, if only I was butch!

In reply to FreshSlate:

worrying in what way. Aliens not being silver soldered properly is a known problem - and solved by their recall and then the fact they went bust and are now produced by somebody else with tigher controls.

Omega Pac cam's - known to fail in a fall which induces twist in the cam lobes. Kinda obvious if you make your cam lobe out of 3 separate pieces. Would I buy one? Would I f*ck. Totally ridiculous concept.

All the others look to me as though they have been placed in vertical, bottomed out cracks, hence lobes bent all over the shop, snapped axles etc. As Curly Stevo says, camalots are prone to the same damage and that is a function which is exacerbated massively by double axle design as you have a great big chunk missing out of the cam just where you need it, and you have forces on the axles which don't resolve one another which leads to accentuated bending. The only way to get round this is by having a single axle and accept lower range. Even then there are areas inwhich you have to compromise, like the termination inducing stress in the stem cable at the end of the termination - once it flexes through use over many years, the cable can become compromised. It's really not an easy problem to solve, other than place your cams the way they SHOULD be placed, and if you absolutely have to place one sub optimally, place it with the caveat that it may go wrong...

In reply to mike kann:
Mike do you think it's reasonable the Camalots deformed so much they pulled out at lower loads than their rated strength?

I'm not loosing any sleep over any of this either. Although an interesting sub point is that cams that are not extended do fairly regularly twist to nie on horizontal in vertical cracks as the climber climbs past them, so taking falls on cams orientated like this must be quite common place.

In reply to CurlyStevo: To be brutally honest, to me atleast, most of this seems to be a marketing numbers game. Someone somewhere decides what sounds like an impressive number and then they work towards that. Whether they reflect any fall you'll ever encounter is quite a different question, quite apart from the ratings being given for absolutely optimal conditions. At the end of the day the industry is trapped in a system whereby everybody has to beat everybody else, regardless of whether the product is ACTUALLY better or not.

I mean just look at the Omega Pac cam. To my way of thinking it's utterly ridiculous that people expect a cam lobe which consists of 3 separate parts, then riveted together to be anything other than fragile. Not only that but the first section is made of a stainless which is not desperately grippy to make up for the loss of strength related to the three part lobe. And what's it about? So they can say they have the biggest range. Does it really make a difference in practice? No, because you still have to carry two cams and as the OP cams are loads heavier, you could probably carry 3 lightweight single axle units for the same weight. But it got them a buzz and some sales.

Another example is 14kN DMM cams. Seing as your rope is limited to 12kN, what conditions are you placing your cams in to get them to see 14kN? And then the reality is even though they are rated 14kN, they will still bend badly in a bad placement because they have a honking great big hole through them.

The reality is the industry tries to work out how they can sell their kit and then tries to make their kit fit the numbers they think people expect. Generally bigger is better apart from lightness. Different manufacturers have different plays - Edelrid have gone light - 7.5 doubles (who cares about edge resistance) - DMM have gone as robust as they possibly can - you can't break DMM gear - until you break it. Wild Country play on the whole Trad thing and being the inventors of the friend (only Greg Lowe was). BD, well they simply don't need to care as they are bigger and better, and have such a well oiled marketing machine that they simply seem to shit gold dust. Is their kit any better? Not really - the tolerances on their cam shafts are dire, the lobes aren't equiangular, their nuts are basic at best, the quality of anodisation on their crabs is not great...

In the end, the market is pretty stagnant. We've been through the light crab revolution and all you see these days is more people jumping on that band wagon - basically to serve us gear freaks who analyse data too much and obsess about the minutiae.

So to answer whether it' reasonable? It's what I'd expect. You've got to tell people something haven't you? Trouble is most people don't understand the numbers or know how they are compromising their gear every day... but hey ho....

In reply to mike kann:


While I'm not disagreeing with the substance of your post, in terms of the numbers, I believe the UIAA rope 12 kN refers to max impact on the climber and not the force on the top runner, which will be larger. However most climbing ropes are designed to give much less impact force than this! In real life, getting >12 kN on the top runner would be somewhat special, but it's not that the UIAA specification makes it impossible.

In reply to mike kann:

Basically I was referring to the video of the BD cam failing significantly below strength in fairly optimal conditions. I agree with the spirit of your post, although I think units failing below rating in an ordinary test due to a design flaw is something that needs to be addressed. Omega cams have taken a deserved hit for their fragility.

We require a lot of conflicting things in climbing gear, the conflicts are usually strength and weight. For things to be unbreakable they would weight a ton, no one wants that. Misuse is one thing but obvious design flaw is another. I don't think the problem with the BD cam falls into misuse.

However, I don't have my BD cams to hand so I don't know if mine have this problem. Might have been sorted at some point, 9kn is still plenty though.

In reply to mike kann:

Nice detailed reply ta.

I do wonder how the UIAA test that BD did where the cams can hold 14kn differs from the test that is shown in the video. I wonder if the cam lobes loaded against a metal vice effected things as I'm guessing the friction would be lower than metal on rock.

In reply to climbwhenready:

Yeah fair cop...

In reply to FreshSlate: In terms of axles, well axles will bend at some point. However the way they bend alters the holding characteristics pretty drastically. On a double axle cam you simply can't get away from the fact that the axles will deform more than on a single axle cam - there are no forces to oppose deflection until they hit the lobe of the opposite cam, by which point they are well on the way to collapse. What material you make them from and their dimension has as much to do with it as anything else. BD use a high tensile Cro mo, Dmm I suspect 17/4ph stainless, again a very high tensile steel. The trouble is that you want some deflection as it aids the cams sticking, so you have to be careful with the OD of the axle to make sure you get just the right amount. And the beauty of steel is that because you can take them a fair way past their yield strength before they rupture at their UTS, it means the axle bends, but the cams still stick, unlike for example aluminium (esp the high tensile alu's like 7075-t6) which tend to shear suddenly and would leave you on the floor.

You have to bear in mind that a 12-14kN fall is massive and highly unlikely, and in that fall you want to make sure that the cam doesn't fail as in fail totally. If it's bent like a spoon but you don't die then that's a good thing. In reality most impacts aren't going to exceed more than 7-8kN, which is just about the point at which you start to see axle deflection. Once it hits a point at which it really starts to yield it's going to be pretty unpredictable exactly how it will bend - it's a highly unstable loading situation. It's just not like a nut which will behave more or less totally predictably.

Now whether you call axles bending a design flaw or not depends on your definitions. Personally I know that I would rather have my axles bend at high load and have a lighter cam and take the rating with a pinch of salt. I mean the ratings what happens in a lab. A few times. Somewhere in Germany.

In reply to sean1:

I have one Cammolot and the rivet heads went rusty after a few weeks of using it. DMM's have never done that so I stick with them.

In reply to andy.smythe:

Thats a function of the chrome molybdenum steel they use rather than stainless. It is in effect surface patina and nother to worry about unless you leave your gear constantly wet. If you oil them and take care of them, you won't have a problem. Lots of companies have used chro mo over the years, most in fact. Trouble is, its super strong, easy to machine, tough, cheapish, and you don't need masses to make them strong enough...

In reply to mike kann:



Thanks for this reply. I appreciate the elaboration. I the problem was not so much them using steel, which is as you say the best material for the job, but the axle changing in diametre creating a large gap between the axle and the lobe when placed above 50% expansion. This seems to leave the axle unsupported and the cam fails about 9kn. This results in a reasonably placed cam failing at 'only' 9kn and becoming damaged at fairly low loads.

In the Dragon vs boulder video, the cam is actually fairly tipped out and is still good after the test. I'm not sure if they have this problem (they still could), I haven't had a good look at the axles on them. I apologise for the layman's version .

In reply to FreshSlate:

Sorry, not quite following what you mean - the axle changes diameter? In all cams, the cam lobe is left unsupported by another axle. The difference is the hole in the double axle cams which induces a weak point at either end of the slot in the lobe with stress risers being a major feature in this area. This means axle deflection has a greater effect on the lobe than on a single axle cam which doesn't need the hole. As a double axle cam puts all the load on each axle (to the tune of the downward load on each cam), you will see the axle bend and buckle (in two differing patterns because of the offset of the lobes) and eventually once its deformed enough the lobe will contact the other axle, at which point it either collapses sideways or it sticks and take more load until the system again becomes unstable. That's just a function of all double axle cams and nothing to do with the slot shape. Maybe you'll get support sooner but my gut feeling is it won't make an enormous amount of difference to the way the cam sticks - the lobes are pretty stiff up to their yield point and generally don't snap because of compressive forces, rather they bend and snap as shown in the failures in the linked thread.

In reply to FreshSlate:

I think I know what you mean now - the green camalot with the stepped axles? These were the second generation of camalot with a u shaped ladder stem - the axle design is totally different to the current c4, or indeed the previous generation 3 camalot, which have straight axles. I do actually have a purple camalot like that - if anybody has a spare buggered purple c4 I can do a test to compare them if you like - I'm just about to get a 5 ton Instron machine - I'd need to set up a jig but that shouldn't be too taxing...

In reply to mike kann:
Do you think the extra expansion range on the camalots / dragons is worth it?

For the most part the expansion range is not a huge amount more than the equivalent heliumn and they weigh a bit more.

If you discount the extra expansion range I take Andy K's point that the dual stem helps prevent the lobes moving about so much during transit and helps protect the trigger wires, although I'm sure this can be solved other ways.

The points against the design. The axels on dual stem cams are not as robust when loaded and also the stem is not free to rotate in placements without moving the cam lobes (which is some cases it will do, in to a less optimal poisition). Then you have other issues with the lobes deforming more easily beause of the massive holes in them both in irregular cracks and if loaded in a less than optimal direction.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I guess that depends on your point of view. The cams not being able to reverse when you're extracting them is a major plus, as is it being much harder to over cam them. I do think at the small end of the range, i.e. below the green camalot the advantage becomes exceedingly marginal, and the extra fragility of the lobes play a much greater part for me - this is where the sub optimal placement by user choice becomes a much more frequent occurrence. Personally I only use my grey camalot when the placement is optimal - there is just too little metal for my liking that connects the lobes, and the length of the cable swage becomes important - if you placed a cam vertically like some of those on the linked thread, you would either snap the lobe at quite a low load or the stem would induce a massive torque and do some serious damage. This is where the WC Zero system really has a major advantage as the torque induced is basically negligible compared to for example the inch of swage you see with the new x4.

There is a certain amount of lab evidence that points to dual axle cams being prone to pulling unexpectedly, but it's got to be said, you don't hear of it occuring out there on rock very much. I don't know how you'd quantify it even if you did or whether it would be significant enough to warrant concern either. Trouble is, testing in rock always yields somewhat ropey (forgive the pun) results as the rock is inconsistent making it very difficult to attain a baseline set of data - hence using metal cheeks in tests.

The other thing that should be pointed out is that the feel in the hand of a double axle cam does inspire confidence, and placements do seem noticeably easier to make. To me it seems that people have voted with their feet - camalots seem prevalent at the moment - perhaps that may change again with time as some of the advantages of the single axle become more promenent again - we'll see. Personally I don't think the single axle is dead for a while yet... now what about rigid axles on large cams where you're not likely to place them over an edge and they gain you some weight loss?

In reply to mike kann:

Damn you're right, that means my single green crag swag camalot is fine. I was looking at a thread from 2011 so I thought it was pretty up to date, never actually showed the fact they were U-shaped as they were back then?

Now you've alerted me to this, which I missed before:

"BTW, this issue was corrected in the single stem Pre-C4 Camalots that replaced the U-stem ones, as the axles in the single stem ones are constant diameter and bear directly on the opposing lobe to give more support and are therefore more resistant to bending like the U-stem axles."

Doh.