UKC

Complete geekery - please ignore if you're not into that kind of thing.

I noticed in an old advert for the original Wild Country Zero cams that one of the USPs is "direct-loading of the cam axle". And, indeed, the flexible stem goes all the way down to the axle. This is actually quite different from the new Zeros and (I think) every other micro cam, and I imagine it helps if you place the cam with a non-ideal direction of load... though I've no expertise!

Anyone have any ideas a) if this really is an advantage and b) why it was done away with in the new Zeros and other microcams?

p.s. this image (not mine) helps you to see what I mean (Zero on far right): https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/241294492511905478/

Ta,
CW

The original Zeroes went a lot smaller than these ones and the smallest sizes were intending to provide new options for aid placements.

The designer at Black Diamond told me years ago that having a short rigid section joining the axle to the wire was important for making sure the cams actually engage. He was talking about very shallow placements where the cam lobes are vertically aligned and the placement is too shallow to change that. I assumed his logic was that the short stem ensured there was a torque which provided an outward pull on at least some of the lobes. The pull coming directly downwards on the axle would achieve this (obviously there would still be some outward pull, but not as much). 

I've no idea how true this is or if I understood him correctly!

The main issue is Zero originally used the same method of cable termination as the WC Superlight nuts, a small Stainless ring was Silver soldered to a stainless cable. This is a precise and difficult process compared to a hydraulic crimp which a trained monkey could do. You need someone who is skilled in the process and can effect a good joint every time with no porosity and a full depth penetration of the filler metal otherwise it will be weak. It is a far better joint when it is done correctly. I know that with WC move away from manufacture in the UK, that process is difficult to source with high quality assurance. IMO, it was a real selling feature of the originals and in proposals I made to them it was included, infact it was improved upon allowing a head nearly as narrow as a c3 which was the narrowest head on the market by far (unless you include the splitter cams but less said about them the better)... So IMO, this is a cost question...

Useful knowledge Mike. 

Thanks both!
 

How effective was the soldering process in keeping the stem genuinely flexible all the way up to the termination? Keeping the solder from wicking up the cable strands beyond the ring must be a right pain, that and getting excess flux out afterwards.

jk

Just looking at the two Zeros I have, they certainly seem flexible all the way to the termination. I'm not sure about the manufacturing process, though.

There was no issue with this because the cable went through the axle into the termination i.e. there was a section of cable shielded by the axle. Same on the Superlights, the nut keeps the joint straight. But then you just have to look at Metolius TCU's and Ultralight power cams - they have no strain relief what so ever and to be honest unless the cam was in a position which blocks the axle from swivelling in the direction of the load, it's pretty unlikely that the cable would bend that close to the axle.

By comparison nearly all hydraulically crimped terminations are crimped all the way to the end of the ferrule which means there is a bending point at the same location as a cable in a prestressed condition. Nearly all cams which use a single short strand of cable suffer from failure due to flexure at the joint. Looped cables less so because there is simply more cable to allow movement and permit a bit of movement. It was a regular failure mode - not masses and masses of course but it was a recognised problem and would remain so for those manufacturers who maintain this method of manufacture.

I'll back that up with personal experience! Was out climbing without someone once and must have been idly fiddling with one of their cams when I noticed that about half the strands of the wire were broken exactly where it exited the plastic sheath and entered the rigid tube leading to the axel. It was such a fluke occurrence that I was even looking really and I was shocked. Ever since, I have regularly checked my own cams for broken wires in this location!

In reply to the OP:

I once had a couple of zeros but I despised them most of all the microcams I've ever used (even more than C3s which I also dislike but for different reasons). The grey one was admittedly just too small but the yellow one was the same size as a 00 friend and every single time I played with both the Z4 and the 00 friend, I ALWAYS felt happier with the friend. The Z4 just wobbles about so much and feels so insubstantial and it felt much trickier to really ram it into an overcammed little constriction because of this feature (and the smaller the cam, the more overcammed you want it innit!). I fell on the 00 friend but never got brave enough to fall on the Z4.

They do feel a bit floppy, but I've not yet struggled to place them and they usually feel bomber once placed. I've never fallen on one and don't plan to do it any time soon. I have looked down on a Z4 (placed in Cameo at Wilton), though, and thought: "ok, I'm not too far above that, and it was bomber." But, I'm never sure whether to swap it out of my rack for a green 0 c3 in my gearbox, because it has a narrower head and feels so damn bombproof in the hand. Having both of them, I definitely don't feel like I can splash out on some other floppy little £55 cam on the basis of superstition alone!