Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 10:17pm PT
|
Anyone have or used the new orange Totem? I've got doubles from black to red but am wondering if they are that much better than my #2's. seems like the larger the Totem the less I use it, at least for aid.
There's probably not much advantage for cracks with little variation. But if you climb on featured rock where the head width of the piece can make or break the your ability to get a placement, then the orange Totem has a big advantage over a yellow Camalot:
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2016 - 08:03am PT
|
I too have the new Orange Totem. Only used it a couple times (free climbing, not aid) as it's been raining super hard every day around here. But love it! I'm not sure there is as much utility over a #2 Camalot as the smaller sizes all seem to get you. The stem is a tad floppy, so it looks like making anything larger will be out of the question till they figure out how to stiffen it up a bit, so hold onto your Blue Camalots:-)
|
|
acrophobe
Trad climber
CT, Gunks
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:33am PT
|
I find that the complaints about floppy heads on the Totems seem to only apply to the Red and Orange sizes. Furthermore, once you retract the trigger, neither has this issue.
Not sure why this complaint persists.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2016 - 01:09pm PT
|
Because some benighted souls like to jam their cams in untriggered.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
Why would you want Totem cams when you can have BD or metolius? If a BD is too wide, use a stopper.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
Why would you want Totem cams when you can have BD or metolius? If a BD is too wide, use a stopper.
Since your comment is unburdened by any reality context, the obvious reply is "why would you want BD and Metolius when you can have Totems?"
A stopper isn't going to work in many places a cam won't fit because of head width, so that's not an alternative.
Some of the reasons you'd want Totems is because they have greater holding power, fit all kinds of places BD and Metolius don't, are more effective in flared placements, are more effective when all lobes can't be loaded, don't walk as easily, and are the least likely of all cams to end up overcammed.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
Duh, check me if Im wrong here: BD have range and holding power due to twin axle design. Why BD? They destroy almost $1,000,000 worth of viable product in testing. Why metolius? Im one of those folks who like to shove them in untriggered.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
Duh, check me if Im wrong here: BD have range and holding power due to twin axle design.
You're approximately half-wrong here. Twin-axle design increases range slightly over the corresponding single-axle design but does nothing extra for holding power, which is a feature of the cam lobe curve and not where its axle is located. And Metolius cams sacrifice range for a little added holding power, so you have to make up your mind about which matters more. Meanwhile, Totems have all the advantages just listed.
Cam-jammers need a stiff stem, which of course promotes walking and encourages overcamming.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
I get your point about the double axle increasing range. But with such a boost to range from double axles, the cam angle can be adjusted at the expense of range to give more power as well., Larger cam lobes fit in the same size placement because the double axle allows them to overlap. That means that the cam angle can be flattened a bit more to give greater holding power without sacrificing overall range, because bigger lobes give greater range to begin with. Thus the double axle design increases both range and power . BD has optimized both at the same time. The bigger lobes increase range so much that they can afford to adjust the cam angle a bit in the direction of more power (flatter lobes) while stil achieving better range than single axle design. Read BDs technical stuff on the subject and you will see what I mean.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
Believe it or not, not only do flatter cam lobes give more power, but they are easier to remove from stuck placements. The greater leverage of flatter lobes works both ways. When you wiggle or shove in to unstick a cam that took a fall, the increased leverage of the flat lobes gives more leverage in the opposite direction as well, making it easier to free gear that welds to the rock after loading. We see alot of stuck single axle cams out there.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
Larger cam lobes fit in the same size placement because the double axle allows them to overlap. That means that the cam angle can be flattened a bit more to give greater holding power without sacrificing overall range, because bigger lobes give greater range to begin with. Thus the double axle design increases both range and power.
You might be able to use the double axle to balance things so as to get the holding power of a smaller cam angle with the range of a larger one, but then you haven't increased the range of the original piece, you have increased its holding power "without sacrificing overall range"---you said it yourself. So you can't start with a single-axle design and increase both the range and the holding power by going to a double axle. Either you keep the original range and get more holding power by using a smaller cam angle, or you keep the original cam angle and get a greater range. You can't have both.
With respect to BD cams, this is all beside the point, because they didn't decrease their cam angles, they just went for the bigger range. In fact, they use a relatively large 14.5 degree cam angle (vs say the DMM double axle cams with a 13.75 degree cam angle and Metolius single-axle cams with a 13.25 degree camming angle), so are going to have a bit less holding power than other double-axle cams, not to mention the Metolius cams and the completely different Totem cam set-up.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
Good discussion guys! I think the jury is still out on this topic. Lets post some BD factory info and compare notes.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
It is possible to optimize range and holding power by optimizing both functions at once. This is only possible with double axles. I was told this by BD factory tech in Colorado. I also read it in some BD specifications literature. Perhaps I don't understand what I read or BD is telling me something ambitious. Lets ask the guys at BD to chime in on this discussion.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
I've climbed with a double rack of BD Camalots for at least 15 years. They are excellent cams, no one is disputing that.
I gradually acquired some Totem cams as they came out (originally ordering them direct from Spain), and as I used them, I realized that by and large, they are simply a better mousetrap. A large number of climbers who have tried them have reached the same conclusion.
I now have a complete set of the Totems, and my standard double rack at this point is half Camalots and half Totems. In many situations, they'll both work just fine, and in those cases I always use the Camalots, because I encounter lots of cases where a Totem will outperform a Camalot, but none where a Camalot will outperform a Totem.
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
Rgold nails it.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
I realize that it sounds impossible to optimize both range and power at the same time. Obviously no parameters will maximize both a the same time. Optimization refers to getting the best compromise which yields the most holding power for a given range. By creating a double axle geometry, the BD has greater range for a given power. Some of that range can be sacrificed to increase holding power. A middle ground between range and power are achieved in this way. I believe you when you say you like totems better. Lets look at the testing data for a true comparison. One thing is certain, double axles weigh more on your rack. I find that the more I climb, the more I prefer lots of small stoppers. Thanks for chiming in. Im not trying to win or lose the conversation. There are facts to be uncovered and I want to shine light on those. Opinions vary. Lets see the test data.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
I do buy the stem design point that they hold flares well. I hate flares. I try to pro em with offset tapers when I can. I must admit I prefer offset single axle cams there if you gottem
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
The pure and simple fact is that Totems work better by far in flared cracks and funky pockets than any other cam including off sets I've used. It doesn't really matter how BD works vs Totem in parallel sided cracks, BD probably does hold better in those types of situations but that's not why you buy Totems, I buy them because they work in more funky situations than any other cam out there today.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
Optimization refers to getting the best compromise which yields the most holding power for a given range. By creating a double axle geometry, the BD has greater range for a given power. Some of that range can be sacrificed to increase holding power. A middle ground between range and power are achieved in this way.
But BD hasn't gone for that middle ground, since, as I indicated earlier, they use one of the largest camming angles in the business. For better or worse, their eggs are in the range basket.
(Alien camming angles at one point were the largest at 16 degrees. They tried to offset the decreased holding power from big cam angle with softer lobe material to provide higher coefficient of friction. Seemed to work pretty well; Aliens were popular. I don't know the stats for the current versions.)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!