/ Dumb question on Friend sizes

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
steveriley - on 13 Sep 2017
Started climbing again after a few years in the wilderness fell running & parenting. Bouldering was the gateway drug, then easy sport and finally a bit of trad. My biggest cam is a rigid Friend 2.5 and I could do with something a bit bigger. Is the numbering scheme comparable to say 20 years ago?
drysori - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to steveriley:

Different brands use different numbers anyway. An old 2.5 is 2.5 inches, so about 6.3cm at max. Newer friends dont follow this convention and other brands are totally different. Best to look at the sizes when buying, any good shop or website should give the measurements.
slab_happy on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to steveriley:

Different brands have different numbering systems -- this is useful to get at least a rough idea of how some of them compare:

https://rockrun.com/blogs/the-flash-rock-run-blog/cam-size-comparison-chart
IPPurewater on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to steveriley:

I've got a mixture of Wild Country Friends and DMM 4CUs. Their sizing seems to be the same or very close. I like the action of the 4CUs. They are easy to place and I like the extendable sling.
Aly - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to steveriley:
No, the cam companies all seem to have come up with a different numbering system, which was fine as you could just use the 'standard' WC system as a baseline, but now wild country have inexplicably decided to change their system with their new cams.

An old friend 2.5 is probably about the size of the new wild country gold cam which is now called a Friend 2. You want the next size up (which used to be a friend 3).
The next one up is the purple one which they do call friend 3 (and is actually fairly similar in size to a friend 3) - but they don't now make a 2.5.

The comparison chart posted above is useful but bear in mind that it uses the wild country helium cam sizes (which are the old WC sizes you are used to) and *NOT* the new wild country cam sizes.

Confused yet?
Post edited at 11:10
john arran - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Aly:

The problem originated when WC followed Ray Jardine's lead in relating the sizes to inches. It means the size overlap gets much bigger with bigger cams.

Hugh Banner was ahead of the game years ago in making his HB cams proportionally sized relative to the next size down, and it looks like WC might finally be changing in that direction too.
steveriley - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to steveriley:

Thanks, I knew it was a knotty problem. I'll get something bigger than an old 2.5, with double axles and worry less.
Rick Graham on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:
> The problem originated when WC followed Ray Jardine's lead in relating the sizes to inches. It means the size overlap gets much bigger with bigger cams.

> Hugh Banner was ahead of the game years ago in making his HB cams proportionally sized relative to the next size down, and it looks like WC might finally be changing in that direction too.

Not sure about that John.

The old 1 2 3 were about 1 2 3 inches but the sizes were set so a 1 could tip out on a very tight 2 placement etc.

So full sizes just overlapping.

Edit Just Had a look at the "Cam Book"
#1 19 to 29 mm
#2 29 to 44 mm
#3 43 to 66 mm
Post edited at 17:06
Casa Alfredino - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:

Yes you're right. The new friends are consitent in overlap aswell as in expansion range. Somewhere I have a pretty graph...

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.