By Charles Danforth
From L'ville, CO
Dec 12, 2007
| I'm normally a BD guy, but I have and use (and like) a couple of pre-rangefinder Metolius cams. No complaints. Very smooth action and easier to clean than the equivalent BDs. Something about the dual stem, maybe? The new Master Cams look interesting. Unless their heads start popping off, I'd probably go with them over Aliens. Aliens never felt all that solid to me, even before the whole QC fiasco. |  |
By Healyje
Dec 12, 2007
| I own two sets of Alien Hybrids, and granted, Metolius' FCU / TCU design won't fit into every crevice an Alien will, but they are far and away the best made cam on the market and made in the US by climbers. The Master Cams will eliminate any comparative complaints relative to "nothing else fits where an Alien can". Camalots, aside from the new thumbloop, are still the same old flimsy, rattling design and IMHO don't hold up nearly well or as long as the Metolius units under harsh use. That and Metolius made absolutely the right decision of cam angle for holding power over range. And the Rangefinder feature is a learning / safety tool, ignore it if you aren't learning or interested. If that's your major complaint versus death-headed Aliens I suspect Metolius' only comment would be 'whine on boys, whine on...
Photo of the head popped on a post-recall, CCH tested, "Tensile Tested" stamped Alien. A design is worthless without the ability to execute and deliver on an consistent implementation of it. Use old, self-tested Aliens - no big deal. Use or buy post-debacle, unself-tested Aliens and you're an idiot - plainer english can't be found.
| |
By saxfiend
Administrator
From Atlanta, GA
Dec 12, 2007
| Healyje wrote: That and Metolius made absolutely the right decision of cam angle for holding power over range.
Agreed. I carry both TCU/FCU cams and Camalots on my rack, but especially in the larger cams (e.g., #10 Metolius vs. #4 Camalot), I feel a lot more confident in the Metolius.
JL | |
By tenesmus
Dec 12, 2007
| Adam Stackhouse wrote: The "range finder" is a gimmick, but overall Metolius has a great reputation (my TCUs have performed beyond reproach)
I know its best to stuff the smaller cams,but what's the deal if they aren't? ie, how much leeway do we really have with those in-between sizes. I took a whipper on a 'just too small for yellow and too big for blue' and blew the blue right out. That's obvious feedback, but is there data?
Makes me wonder if they'll have offset master cams? Or I'll just buy a different brand for the different ranges. | |
By brenta
From Boulder, CO
Dec 12, 2007
| Healyje wrote: Metolius made absolutely the right decision of cam angle for holding power over range.
Could you elaborate? I'm familiar with the relation between the tangent of the camming angle and the friction coefficient. I'd like to pick your brain on the reasons for preferring a smaller size range to a smaller friction range. I also wonder if you have an opinion on why Master Cams have smaller ranges than the corresponding Powercams and TCUs. | |
By Healyje
Dec 12, 2007
| brenta wrote: Could you elaborate? I'm familiar with the relation between the tangent of the camming angle and the friction coefficient. I'd like to pick your brain on the reasons for preferring a smaller size range to a smaller friction range. I also wonder if you have an opinion on why Master Cams have smaller ranges than the corresponding Powercams and TCUs.
Link to Metolius site: Metolius - Greater Holding Power
I fall, a lot, and still put up groundup, onsight FA's on some pretty sketch lines cleaning and trundling free on lead and don't mind sacrificing a little range for better holding power. I just want the little suckers to stick.
Don't know about the Master Cams' ranges - I know that the cam lobes were cut skinnier than their regular cams, but as far as I know they have the same cam lobe profile and axle hole location. I would expect them to have the same range as their other cams. I could no doubt be mistaken, however. | |
By David Trippett
From Vancouver, BC
Dec 12, 2007
| In their website Metolius Quotes this paper: Jamie Gertsch - Brigham Young University, research paper "A Comparative Study Of Spring Loaded Camming Devices" June 1997
anyone have a copy they could post a link to or PDF? I'd like to read this. | |
By Healyje
Dec 12, 2007
| I just saw that the Master Cam range chart on MountainGear.com didn't match the MetoliusClimbing chart for their regular cams so I called metolius and asked about the range differences. They said the ranges are the same as their regular cams and that there must have been some errors developing whatever different tables folks are looking at. The Master Cam lobe profiles and axle locations are exactly the same as their regular cam lineup so the ranges have to be the same. | |
By brenta
From Boulder, CO
Dec 12, 2007
| Healyje wrote: I just saw that the Master Cam range chart on MountainGear.com didn't match the MetoliusClimbing chart for their regular cams so I called metolius and asked about the range differences.
Thanks for looking into this. I was indeed going by the chart at MountainGear.com. It was a bit surprising, even though with the same lobe profile, they could have used a smaller rotation angle. | |
By brenta
From Boulder, CO
Dec 13, 2007
| Does anyone know the cam angle of the Camalots (C3 and C4)? A quick search netted this:
Metolius: 13.25°
Link Cam: 13.50°
Friends: 13.75°
Aliens: 16.00°
TotemCam: 12.85°-14.1° (variable angle)
Metolius's claim that they have a 10% larger outward force than "other brands" makes me believe that Camalots' angle is around 14.5°, but I could not find confirmation. I couldn't find a number for Trango cams either.
EDIT: 14.5° also reasonably agrees with measurements I took of a #4 C4. | |
By John Langston
Dec 13, 2007
| Healyje wrote: there must have been some errors developing whatever different tables folks are looking at.
You do realize that if CCH had made a misprint that you'd site this as yet another reason the cams are so sketchy don't you? Don't deny it, teh intarnut noes u. | |
By Avery Nelson
From Boulder, CO
Dec 13, 2007
| David Trippett wrote: In their website Metolius Quotes this paper: Jamie Gertsch - Brigham Young University, research paper "A Comparative Study Of Spring Loaded Camming Devices" June 1997 anyone have a copy they could post a link to or PDF? I'd like to read this.
This seems to be marketing fluff.
I searched through both "Engineering Village" and "ISI Web of Science" and received no results. Therefore, this is not likely a published study. Therefore, it probably doesn't have much credit.
That doesn't mean the findings are inaccurate, but it's not a readily available paper for review -- so unless that changes, I consider it marketing fluff without a source. | |
By Healyje
Dec 13, 2007
| John Langston wrote: You do realize that if CCH had made a misprint that you'd site this as yet another reason the cams are so sketchy don't you? Don't deny it, teh intarnut noes u.
Actually, no, I wouldn't. There is an enormous distinction between information about a cam written on paper and information about the cams themselves. Retailers often transcribe manufacturer data incorrectly in their catalogs and web sites - it happens all the time in the computer business. I have no concerns about such gaffs.
What I do have concerns about is data relative to the actual physical cams: Bad brazes, misaligned axle holes, unswaged stem loops, and untested "tested" cams. Picky, I know, but I'm just that kind of guy.
| |
By John McNamee
Administrator
From Littleton, CO
Dec 13, 2007
| Avery Nelson wrote: This seems to be marketing fluff. I searched through both "Engineering Village" and "ISI Web of Science" and received no results. Therefore, this is not likely a published study. Therefore, it probably doesn't have much credit. That doesn't mean the findings are inaccurate, but it's not a readily available paper for review -- so unless that changes, I consider it marketing fluff without a source.
I'll contact Metolius and see if they can help.
John | |
By Ben Kiessel
Dec 13, 2007
| Healyje said, "[metolius cams] are far and away the best made cam on the market and made in the US by climbers."
From all the climbers I have met this isn't a great argument.
You stick with your range finder and I'll stick with aliens. | |
By Healyje
Dec 13, 2007
| Ben Kiessel wrote: Healyje said, "[metolius cams] are far and away the best made cam on the market and made in the US by climbers." From all the climbers I have met this isn't a great argument. You stick with your range finder and I'll stick with aliens.
Sounds like a plan... | |
By Kevin Stricker
From Evergreen, CO
Jan 9, 2008
| Anyone have an update on when these will be available? They are still not on the Metolius website. | |
By John McNamee
Administrator
From Littleton, CO
Jan 9, 2008
| Kevin ,
Mgear now shows them shipping towards the end of February. Earlier it was Jan 20, 08.
John | |
By JacobD
From McCall, ID
Jan 9, 2008
| Ben Kiessel wrote: Healyje said, "[metolius cams] are far and away the best made cam on the market and made in the US by climbers." From all the climbers I have met this isn't a great argument. You stick with your range finder and I'll stick with aliens.
Yeah, thats not a very good argument. Aliens are also made in the US by climbers. I too will stick with aliens | |
By Healyje
Jan 10, 2008
| JacobD wrote: Yeah, thats not a very good argument. Aliens are also made in the US by climbers. I too will stick with aliens
The difference is the folks at Metolius are both excellent climbers and excellent manufacturers as opposed to CCH where they may be good climbers, but have shown they don't no shit about manufacturing. | |
By LDM
Jan 10, 2008
| Aliens Suck. Only people who can't think for themselves and go along with the norm actually say they prefer Aliens. My rack is full of worthless Aliens, booted off climbs because they get stuck so much. Aliens are absolutely worthless in the desert as well; minimal range and seizure with the slightest amount of dirt. They look good in stores though and have a cool name. That is about as far as their worth goes. | |
By Dan Godshall
From Colorado Springs, CO
Jan 10, 2008
| Got any worthless aliens you're willing to toss my way? :) | |
By Matt Nelson
From Honolulu, HI
Jan 10, 2008
| Yea I would take those worthless Aliens also... | |
By brenta
From Boulder, CO
Jan 23, 2008
| Healyje wrote: I just saw that the Master Cam range chart on MountainGear.com didn't match the MetoliusClimbing chart for their regular cams so I called metolius and asked about the range differences. They said the ranges are the same as their regular cams and that there must have been some errors developing whatever different tables folks are looking at. The Master Cam lobe profiles and axle locations are exactly the same as their regular cam lineup so the ranges have to be the same.
Metolius now has the specs of the Master Cams on its website. The ranges are the same as those posted by mgear. | |
By Healyje
Jan 24, 2008
| brenta wrote: Metolius now has the specs of the Master Cams on its website. The ranges are the same as those posted by mgear.
Yeah, forgot to post up here, but I did call them and ask and they said the MGear and new specs on the site are the correct ones. | |
|
[ Forums > Climbing Gear Discussion ]
RSS Feed
