UKC

Here we put all the top cams head to head in one massive review!

Which cams have the largest range? Which are the lightest? Which are the cheapest? And... which did we like the best? Find out in this UKC review...

Read more

In reply to UKC Gear:

I emailed Totem regarding the Totem range, and was told:

"The Totem 0.50 (black) will be available in October. It's range will be 11.3-18.4mm"

In reply to UKC Gear:

Surprised not to see the Wild Country Zeros in the test. Great wee cams!

In reply to SenzuBean:



thats the size of the blue isn't it?

In reply to UKC Gear:
Any thoughts on the rather regular reports of the non-passively rated "best in test" x4's umbrella-ing in good placements?

And where are the C3's?

In reply to andy.smythe:
>> > "The Totem 0.50 (black) will be available in October. It's range will be 11.3-18.4mm"


Similar to the blue Basic, a size down from the blue Totem

http://alanblanchflower.co.uk/climbing/cams.php?md%5B%5D=Basic+Cam&md%5B%5D...

In reply to AlanLittle:
Wahhh got excited about a black basic then...

In reply to AlanLittle:

you are correct. my apologies

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

I'm more excited about a black totem. In my opinion will be the best micro cam on the market.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Strange review, the winner in small cams category is currently under suspicion of failure and no comparison table for range, head width, weight etc

In reply to UKC Gear: indeed, no mention that master cams and c3s and zeros have passive strength where as basics and aliens and x4s don't. Not a problem until you place the, badly. And also where are the Metolius TCU's? Yeah, they are slightly compromised by the ladder frame, but they are ridiculously light, and actually pretty excellent. For my money just in terms of quality, Metolius and totem are top of the pile. The X4 is a Metolius killer made by bd to kill the main us competition. You just have to look at their zero recall history to understand that Metolius are king of quality. Sure, they're not that well known in the Uk, but if you want something thats the best quality... Also the x4 termination is exceedingly long and the wire they use is 7x7 cable rather than 7x 19 which makes them less flexible, and the wires take a set over that long termination rather than bending freely. Just compare the various wires and you'll see what I mean.

In reply to beardy mike: They may not have recalled anything but if you show a metolius master cam to a sea cliff they seize up! Even had a friend who bought one, didn't use it for a few months and by the time he came to use it , it had seized up - no amount of wd40 or manipulating would get it to work so he sent it back.

Personally think the totem basics are the best in the microcams though haven't used the x4s.

Dear totem for Xmas I would like a black basic...

In reply to Duncan Campbell:
That may be so, that's because they use a high tensile chrome moly steel for the axle. You might want to think about oiling your totems in that case seeing as the alu is raw unanodised alu and the axles are chrome moly too... just saying like. Infact the only ones which aren't are X4's and Zero's (as far as I know - I haven't cut apart a c3 to check...).

PS they specifically say that you should oil and maintain your cams. If your buddy doesn't maintain his cams, goes climbing on a sea cliff and then doesn't wash them off then he's rather daft. Especially seeing as many small cam lobes are made from 7075-t6 which is prone to stress corrosion cracking caused specifically by leaving that sort of metal in a salty environment. And especially so if you let the salt dry off on the surface of the metal...

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

Infact you might want to think about oiling your BD c4' aswell seeing as they're with a high tensile chr-mo axle too.

In reply to UKC Gear:

So you reference an article on Totem cams that says they're made out of a harder alloy and then say they're softer and good luck trying to get a Size 6 off of Wild Country ...

In reply to Lil_Pete:

That's a bit of a mistake on Allen's(?) part. Totem BASICS use a softer alloy, Totem Cams use pretty much the same alloy as everyone else.

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

Iain, is it 7075-t6 on the totem totems? I only ask because the 6082-t6 is less prone to SCC than 7075... might be worth mentioning to the team...

In reply to beardy mike:
I've also had a mastercam seize after sea cliff climbing and apparently it's fairly common. I regularly clean and lubricate my gear as well, especially after sea cliff climbing. This happened after a day in the sun at Carreg y Barrcud. Got home and checked my kit over and it was solid, had pliers, grips and a vice on it. Soaked it in WD40 and also hot water. Neither worked. It was the blue (size 2?). However, apart from that I do agree that they're great little cams.

Col.

In reply to beardy mike:



Thanks Beardy, can you explain why other cams don't seize up like the metolius cams? There must be another factor?

In reply to FreshSlate: General machining tolerances. I know Metolius hold tight tolerances on the fit between the lobe and the axle which makes them butter smooth, but also easier for them to seize as there's less of a gap to fill with corrosion. I guess it is what it is. Metolius produces for a largely American audience were sea cliff climbing is rare and it's less of an issue. In the UK where it's a widespread and common thing to do, it's more of a problem. There's always a compromise.

In this case it's that the grades of stainless which are strong enough are much much harder to machine than a cro-mo and they also suffer from SCC just like the Aluminium. So what are you going to do? All I'm pointing out is that Metolius cams are genuinely excellent - I've got some old TCU's which I've had since 2000 and which still operate absolutely fine, have been on lots of sea cliffs and are simply great. I don't know what the difference between mine which are fine and others which are not - it could well be using WD40 which is a dry film lubricant and water dispersant (infact that's what it's designed for over and above lubrication hence the WD) does not cling to the axle as well as a more standard oil but I'm not really sure...

In reply to beardy mike:

Yeah I do lubricate all my cams (basics and dragons) at the end of the trad season and during if I a) feel they need it and b) have time between going cragging to do so.

However, I have found master cams to be particularly bad though tbh they feel sticky straight from the shop. Considering a friend dropped one of my basics into the sea earlier this year and after a quick rinse it is still fine I feel like for whatever reason they are less likely to jam. plus they actually hold when you weight them!

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

Well you did the right thing to wash it off thoroughly. TBH if you did this, then as soon as it's dry and lubricated there shouldn't be a problem. If your buddy took his master cam into a salty environment and then left them for a while, I'm not really that surprised. In the past I've had WC cams seize when they still used high tensile cro-mo and they had reasonably slack tolerances. It's just not that surprising really. As I say, you design a cam for desert towers and salts not going to be a problem...

In reply to beardy mike:
Hi Mike

This is a paste from the article I did not understand ;

"The camming angle of the BD Camalots is a little higher than most of the other cams in this review. The seemingly 'standard' camming angle is 13.75, whereas the Camalots use a 14.5 camming angle. This means you get even more range out of the BD Camalots than the other dual axle cam on test - the DMM Dragons - but it also means that at both ends of the placement size spectrum (having your Camalots tipped-out and over-cammed) you get marginally less camming force, and the placements are slightly less strong."

13.75 obviously gives less range but more grip than 14.5.
( 14.5 is presumably fine for dry granite )
But why should the camming force only be affected at the ends of the range?

In reply to Rick Graham et al

Q. Rick, do C4 rip more frquently than cams with 13.75?
Also agree your comments re.
'End of range only' ???
Makes no sense

In reply to Rick Graham:

The extra range provided by the extra angle is usually somewhat overstated. At small sizes it's really really marginal, to the point you'd hardly notice it, whilst at large sizes it might make a few mm's difference. It actually all gets somewhat subtle, and tuning your range is not the easiest of jobs. Certainly what we did with the new WC range was we went for absolute consistancy. The overlap is the same from cam to cam and the range is the same as a ratio. All other cams do not achieve this. DMM dragons are the next best, whilst BD c4's are pretty inconsistent - there is quite a large gap between the 1 and the 3 with the 2 not sitting in the middle of the gap. Really the worst of the bunch in this respect is the Metolius range which are a bit all over the place. I've not studied the others lie Camp etc in any detail.

The only thing which they might be referencing with the force aspect would be if the cam angle changes through out the range. I've not traced the shape of a c4 lobe to compare it to a true equiangular spiral. I do know for certain that Metolius change the angle through the range to provide a low angle in the prime of its range (i.e. high holding power) and then tweal it towards the fully open position to make the range slightly larger. It's possible that BD do this but I doubt it somehow. Again, the difference is really rather marginal. If the angle IS equiangular or there abouts, then the force will be consistent through out the range assuming a perfectly parallel placement.

In reply to beardy mike:

Slightly off topic but does the C4 perform differently from cams with 13.75?

In reply to John Kelly:

The aspect of quantifying pull out force is really really difficult to do in anything but an anecdotal way. You can test cams between knurled steel cheeks as per the CE standard but this doesn't necessarily reflect what happens in the real world. In lab tests, a collegue has done tests and his feeling was that double axle cams in general are a less stable configuration and are more likely to pull, although not necessarily due to friction (i.e. camming angle). His opinion is that beyond 15 degs the friction becomes very low. This is somewhat at odds with what people say about aliens and totem basics, although both of these cams use the much softer 6061-t6 alloy rather than 7075-t6 which is distinctly hard by comparison. Whether this makes up for frictional loss by deforming to create a mechanical interference with the rock is a good question, my feeling is that it does. That all said, I've said before that dual axle cams fail in strange ways, as the chunk of metal in the middle of the lobe which is missing concentrates stress in different places to a solid single axle cam. In most every day falls with a good placement, with good friction and the cam placed correctly you simply won't notice the difference. However in a less than perfect placement where you might accidentally side load the lobes, you will find the lobes in a dual axle cam will buckle more easily than a single axle cam and can end up tracking sideways and pulling at a fairly low force. In the small sizes of cam, the lobes are pretty easy to break in such a fall. So people should be aware that under no circumstances should they place a dual axle in the 0.4 range in a placement which might result in a side loading. This could be that its a shallow crack and the lobes are pushed up to the back of the crack or some variant of this... neither big nor clever.

In reply to beardy mike

Thanks - cam angle not 'significant' effect (great), complex geometry of unit leads to odd modes of failure - kind of makes sense' - love C4

In reply to beardy mike:

Is this a subtle poke at the industry gag order on discussing failing stacked axle x4's?

In reply to neuromancer:

No actually I think what they did was fairly clever, when I saw it for the first time I was impressed. Not so impressed with no cam stops or the way the rest of it was executed. The long crimp termination in my view is rather 1980s, as is the stiff wire used, the skinny cams which are basically just skinny to get head width out, there's plenty of compromises which I think are needless.

In reply to beardy mike:

I think UKC need to clarify what they're on about with the less camming force at "both ends of the placement size spectrum" on C4s.

If they're not equiangular, that's good to know, but they may be conflating the principle that it's a better placement at the middle of the size spectrum with the camming force, which should be the same?

In reply to John Kelly:


No I don't think I quite said that. All things being equal, if you have a rough, grippy surface where minor deformation of the lobe surface creates a mechanical interference between the grain structure of the rock and the metal, then camming angle will play a much smaller role.

On smooth rocks, the friction must be improved or a mechanical interference created by nestling the lobes into rugosities in the crack. Here it will have a far greater effect, as will a softer lobe material, and where cams like the Totem totems will come into full effect, especially in more marginal placements. Can C4's pull out in this sort of rock? Absolutely so you need to modify the way you place them to ensure they don't. I climb mostly on limestone or Dolomite, both smooth fine grained rocks and I will tend to try to place cams in constricted pockets where the friction becomes less relevant.

On soft rocks, which by and large are rough and grippy like sand stone or granite, then rock puverisation will play a bigger factor with crushed rock essentially becoming a lubricant and leading to pullout. So in this case spreading the stress transmitted to the rock to a larger area by using a wider cam lobe will improve holding power.

So this is why when I was doing the work for WC on their lobes we went for as wide as we could manage, in a medium soft metal which will still be strong enough not to buckle (especially as the lobes get bigger this becomes a problem) and with a conservative middle of the road cam angle. It's interesting to note that as DMM redeveloped their dragon lobes they came up with nearly exactly the same design, including strengthening ribs in the same places. This was all done totally independently, so we're pretty sure we've got it about as right as we can get it in system which will by its nature be a series of compromises...

In reply to beardy mike:
Ok sorry - I guess what i'm trying to find out is if cams with lobes of the same width and material are placed in identical slots and loaded identically as they would be when a climber takes a fall, would the camming angle, 13.75 vs BD angle, make a significant difference
Thanks John

In reply to John Kelly:

Yes, it will make a difference. Whether it's significant is dependent on surface roughness of the rock and the softness of the lobe metal. On rough rock, I doubt you'll have a problem with the angle. On smooth rock you should mitigate the possibility of the cam pulling by seeking out more secure placements where possible. This will be less of a problem with low angle cams, especially were a soft material has been used and were friction is actively increased as per the totem totem.

In reply to UKC Gear:
Marking Totem cams down because they don't have as wide a range of units as others doesn't seem logical because you would just use other makes in those sizes (as I do). It's the units they make that should be reviewed not the units they don't make.
See below:

"However for a full set of cams they simply aren't available in enough sizes. Yellow cams are perfect hand size for many people, and there isn't a Totem available in this size, or the size up - so perfect hand jamming cracks and cupped hands are both out! Bummer!"

In reply to beardy mike:


Am I reading this correctly in that the metolius master cams have passive strength? Would you mind pointing me to a source on this? I just bought myself a couple, and couldn't find any references to passive strength in the manual. Thanks!

In reply to Juan S:

They all have full cam stops so they will at least have some passive strength. What that strength is I don't know. I can try to find out if you like.

In reply to beardy mike:


Thanks! I'd be interested to hear if you do find out.

In reply to Juan S:

So, the reason they have not got ratings is because the company feels that rating them indicates that that is normal usage, which clearly it's not. However all bar the very smallest, the cam stops on their cams are capable of withstanding a passive loading over the rated strength. But the emphasis is on that you shouldn't be using them like this in the first place which I'd say is reasonable logic!