Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dmitry
Trad climber
Chita, Russia
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005 - 05:49pm PT
|
Based on TomMoulin's comparison of these with C4 Camalots, the weight and range difference is not overwhelming.
Why pay more for a unit then?
Looks like a novelty.
Moof, your response to the Oregon dude is a disgrace, you sorry Cali thing.
|
|
Melissa
Big Wall climber
oakland, ca
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005 - 05:55pm PT
|
"Why pay more for a unit then?
Looks like a novelty."
They may be a novelty, but the Max Cams are cheaper.
|
|
dmitry
Trad climber
Chita, Russia
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2005 - 11:10am PT
|
Hey, Melissa, pre C4 camalots and pre "range finder" metolius units are now on various sites and in retail at 1/2 price.
Could be an opportunity to fill out the rack for cheap instead of chasing a new SuperMaxCam at full price :)
|
|
deuce4
Social climber
Pagosa Springs CO
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 23, 2005 - 12:47pm PT
|
After considering the MaxCam, I can see that the only way that the unit will have a consistent force diagram (needed for security in a range of placements, and not just parallel cracks), the relative action of the main cam and the elongated cam will also have to be consistent--not sure how this will work with just springs (as opposed to some sort of direct gearing mechanism not yet implemented on any commercially available cams), but as people have mentioned, the only way to see is to have one in your hands! Still looks like a cool innovation to me.
Maxcam folks, you can send me one too when you send a set to Werner!
|
|
Melissa
Big Wall climber
oakland, ca
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2005 - 01:10pm PT
|
I haven't seen the old camalots for more than 20% off. Where can we get them for 50% off?
|
|
imnotclever
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2005 - 01:41pm PT
|
From the link in JFK's post:
"You can eliminate the need for "offsets"—the extended range of the MaxCam™ takes care of this for you."
Anybody have thoughts on this? I guess it makes sense.
|
|
dmitry
Trad climber
Chita, Russia
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2005 - 04:11pm PT
|
You're right, Melissa, I did a quick search and cannot find anything on-line better than 20-25% off retail on the old camalots either. Saw a much better deal somewhere though...
I got a couple #4's for $40 each at a local rei about a month ago. Check locally, they may be gunning to dump the "old" inventory
|
|
maldaly
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2005 - 01:43pm PT
|
Hi Gang,
I finally figured out how to post replies on this forum. The sign up was busted for a while. I forwarded this thread to Max Reed, the designer of the MaxCam (Get it?)and he wrote back:
-----------------------------------------------------
Hi Malcolm,
I saw that thread too and really enjoyed reading it. I love hearing other engineers trying to "figure it out". The solution is not obvious and no one on that thread came very close to it. Solving the geometry was a collaboration of my own efforts with the direction of my advisor in grad school. I dont think I would have ever gotten there on my own.
Whats fun is that no matter what the theory is behind the forces, proof is in the pudding, and the MaxCam bites cracks like a pit bull.
cheers,
Max
--------------------------------------------------------
There are also some informative posts on RC.com by people who have used them. We're scrambling to get production done and they should be availabe in the stores that have ordered them by mid-end of May.
Malcolm
|
|
jfield
Trad climber
dorrington, ca
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2005 - 04:22pm PT
|
My name is John Field, and I am the inventor of the Supercam. I want to avoid making any partisan comments in this forum, but I can inform the discussion.
First of all, the only mathematically consistent definition of range which I know of is the ratio of largest size to smallest size. The original Jardine cams obtained about 1.62. Marketing literature has used a wide variety of different other definitions - mostly spurious.
The supercam is a traditional single axle cam design. A force diagram shows it to be basically identical to Jardine's original cams. By changing the angle subtended by the two cam lobes, it is possible to avoid the tip interference which limits the range of normal cams. At a particular ratio of cam lobe size, this effect is optimized, and this is the supercam. This necessitates a new trigger mechanism, but all the strength loading is as it always has been in the past. The design range is about 1.77, but as discussed below, could have been adjusted up into the low 1.9s or so.
The supercam and the maxcam are not to be confused. The maxcam operates on an essentially new principle. There are important physical assumptions being made in the maxcam which the user should understand and be comfortable with. Range is somewhat over 2.0. There will be no patent problems, and I expect that metolius's pending patent will coexist side by side with trango's. Although completely different in concept, the maxcam has had intellectual property issues with the patent for the camalots. Nonetheless, I believe that it is not infringing the camalot patent, and certainly is outside the original concept of this patent.
Camming range is not simply intrinsic to a design. In addition to advantages of any particular design, there remains a practical decision of the magnitude of the force multiplication - often simply referred to as the effective camming angle. Different manufacturers have chosen different effective 'angles' and this results in significant changes in the range. It also changes the likelihood of a placement holding.
Metolius has traditionally chosen the smallest camming angles. This explains why the range of Metolius units is smaller - traditionally at about 1.60. It also results in a greater outward force, and therefore less friction is required for the placement to hold. Depending on how you look at it, this may be an advantage or a disadvantage. But, no matter how you look at it, it is a choice. The supercams continue in this tradition. I can attest that this choice is made out of concern over safety. Whether you agree with this or not is a matter for your own consideration.
As another example, the camalots use a camming angle at the high end of the manufacturer's range. About 40% of the camalot additional range comes from this, the remaining 60% is from intrinsic advantages of the twin-axle design. Again, this is a choice made by the manufacturer. The obtained range is about 1.72.
Finally, you would be very foolish to assume that the strength ratings accurately represent performance in the real world. While it may seem naively obvious that actual strength of different products would perhaps sort in order with rated strength, this is not the case. Implicitly when you accept a manufacturer's rated strength, you are accepting a whole variety of assumptions about conditions that will actually occur. The strength ratings are only as good as the assumptions which a manufacturer is willing to make on your behalf. But, you are the one living out on the sharp end. Use your head in evaluating these things.
I am currently working on a technical white paper discussing the physics of the supercam and exhibiting the strain patterns in the lobes and testing and so forth. This will be available at the metolius website. In the meantime, I am going to try to field responses privately by email for those interested. You can contact me at jfield@goldrush.com
I guess I need to say that maxcams are a trademark of trango and camalots are a trademark of black diamond equipment.
please climb safely; it is extremely dangerous,
John Field
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2005 - 12:45am PT
|
Thanks for the informative post John.
Werner
|
|
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2005 - 01:39pm PT
|
I have, in my possession, one #2 Maxcam.
Here is a photo of its placement in Indian Creek:
Not very helpful, but the point is that I have used it, not just looked at it, which is different from when I looked at both the Supercam and the Max Cam at the OR show.
I'm a hard-core BD Camalot lover. It appeals to my sense of solidity, aesthetics, and perceived strength. I like the cam stops for passive protection if the need should arise (walking, etc), I like the flexibility in the stem.
I love the improvements BD has made in the C4. The ergonomic loop and single swage of cable that ensues is great. The lightness is great.
But, okay . . . now, add to that the triple axle, the larger effective range, and the extendable sling and you have the Max Cam. It is every bit as solid in construction as the C4 (which is important to me, and why I don't like other brands of cams with similar components). It comes in the same colors and sizes, even.
It's 100% competition for the C4 and I can flat out say that I would rather have a rack of Max Cams right now that C4s.
They place as easily as C4s, although they are slightly asymetrical so it requires some practice with blind placements, although they can get more tipped out than the Camalot. They feel very much the same ergonomically. I LOVE how the stem pivots, it reacts with that much more "give" on whippers.
The one problem is that when the cam is completely retracted, there is a bit of the lobe that noticably pops out the top. In comparisons with Camalots, this is so markedly obvious because the lobe is cut off instead of completing the circular axis. It does not extend more than .3 inches father than a Camalot would. It's a consideration for shallow pockets, but easily remedies by going a size smaller for your selection. It might be a problem in horizontal placements, but I've not used it in this manner yet.
yes, I have taken whippers on this cam. I rarely take lead falls (I learned it was bad and I can't really get over that head game) but I figured to do this cam justice, I would. Werner, when I get to Yos, I'll look you up if Mal isn't able to give you a test run and show it to you. i cannot say enough good things about this cam.
If you don't find it BETTER than the C4, you will find it equivalent, and as Melissa said, it should be cheaper.
|
|
imnotclever
climber
|
|
I'm going to bring this back up.
From this link http://trango.com/pages/moremax.php they make the statement: "You can eliminate the need for "offsets"—the extended range of the MaxCam™ takes care of this for you."
By referring to Offsets, they must be referring to Hybrid Aliens, so I checked it out. The range on the smallest Max cam is 17.8 to 35.6 mm. The range of the largest Hybrid is 15.5 to 33 mm. So it looks like you could only replace one of the Hybrids with a Max.
Does WC still make offsets and what sizes are they?
|
|
macgyver
Social climber
Oregon, but now in Europe
|
|
Just my 2 cents...
I had two WC offset cams, on loan, late last year. They correspond with the two sizes above a red/yellow alien. I wanted to see if they would make a nice piece for boxed out pinscars etc.
My findings are this:
Pros:
the offset cam is good in flaring knobby grooves (like those found on runoffs of conglomerate rock)
the offest cam is very good in fractured alpine terrain
Cons:
the spacing of the lobes make the flare angle a little severe compared to what you find in pinscars
the depth of the unit makes it pretty clutzy to get solid placements in pin scars. The alien design is ideal for this.
If I bought one I would buy the one above the red/yellow and thats it. Above this the offset angle is pretty big in my opinion.
I did find however that if you climb all the time in blocky/fractured rock the offset placements are left and right thanks to the geological jenga came that seems to occur at higher altitudes. For example I used the cams on some of the shattered routes on the Index in Chamonix and found them to fit all over the place. However i would have had no problem without them.
I wouldn't mind if someday CCH released the red/orange offset....hmmmm a climber can dream.
McG
|
|
imnotclever
climber
|
|
A red-orange would get you from 19.8 to 40.6 mm. The .75 Max cam is 20.3 to 40.6 mm.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
This thread is so fantastically useful, informative and counter to the spirit of so many internet forums, I'm tempted to post a bunch of pictures of Bush morphed into a chimp or Kerry looking like a horse just to break the good karma!
but I won't THanks guys for the input.
Karl
|
|
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
STFU N00B!
Man, that's the first time I've ever used that joke. I promise I won't every again. I feel dirty just typing it.
|
|
dmitry
Trad climber
Chita, Russia
|
|
Just looked at the specs for MaxCam's & SuperCams versus Camalots.
I saw NO advantage weight or usable range wise on the SuperCams vs Camalots. No advantage pricewise either.
While Maxcams are a bit cheaper, I found NO advantage weight or usable range wise vs Camalots, until you get to the biggest #4 purple piece. That one looks like it comfortably covers old BD 3.5 to over 4" range. Could be a great "just in case" OW piece for adventure and alpine climbing.
New Camalots:
Size Color Range(mm) Strength(kN) Weight(gm)
.4 Gray 15.5 - 26.6 10 82
.5 Purple 19.6 - 33.3 12 97
.75 Green 24.1 - 40.9 14 116
1 Red 30.2 - 52.1 14 134
2 Yellow 37.3 - 64.3 14 158
3 Blue 50.8 - 87.4 14 201
4 Gray 66 - 114.3 14 278
5 Purple 85.6 - 148.1 14 381
6 Green 114.3 - 194.6 14 557
MaxCams:
Size Color Weight (g) Range (mm) Strength (kN)
0.5 Purple 85 17.8-35.5 13
0.75 Green 114 20.3-40.6 13
1 Red 132 25.4-50.8 13
2 Yellow 150 33-66 13
3 Blue 201 43.2-86.3 13
4 Purple 280 61-124.5 13
SuperCams:
Size Range (mm) Weight (g) Strength (kN)
Small 39.5 - 70.5 198 13.3
Medium 52.5 - 91.5 255 13.3
Large 66.5 - 118.5 312 13.3
Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
Brian Hench
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2006 - 05:10pm PT
|
Let me point out something that sets the MaxCam apart from the Camalot and the SuperCam. Calculate the overlap between sizes, defined as the ratio of the overlap of a given cam size with its next smaller size, divided by the range. In Camalots, it ranges from 37-59%, SuperCam 46-48% and MaxCams 40-72%. You will find that the MaxCam has larger overlaps between sizes as you go down in size. The ratio is about the same as Camalots in the largest size, but is as much as 30% larger in the smaller sizes.
In my experience, it is harder to judge sizes precisely as the size decreases, so having this increased overlap is desirable. It means that chances are, all things being equal, you are more likely to grab size that will fit.
|
|
Trashman
Trad climber
SLC
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2006 - 05:20pm PT
|
if you climb frequently in the desert though, this "useable" range is reduced. if a max cam is more than half open and walks, the asymetry causes one side to tip out progressively more w/ each "walk".
this means the cams are only safe when placed tightly enough to avoid tipping out the "floating" side. it's hard to describe, but easily demonstrated in a wide #2 camalot crack like incredible hand crack in IC. i don't think this would be an issue in most areas, but it certainly affects desert rats.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!