Totem Basic Cams are HERE

UPS dropped off some new toys yesterday. This is an initial review as I haven't had time to climb on them yet. Frankly, based on my initial impressions, you won't need a "real rock" review since they're so close to the old CCH Aliens in everything but sizing (see below) that I'd say if you've placed the old CCH ones these will work just the same.

So the first of the "New" aliens are out. Totem calls theirs the "Basic Cam" and makes 5 sizes: Green, Green/Yellow Hybrid, Yellow, Yellow/Red Hybrid and Red.

The New Totem Basic Cams

I'll cut to the chase: If you want new, CE tested quality Aliens RIGHT NOW, these are it. Totem makes QUALITY products and their Totem Cams are gaining popularity for their innovative design and functioning (I love mine). Totem Basics are essentially CCH Aliens v2. They're nearly SPOT ON reproductions of the original. Their action feels the same (if not a bit smoother), the flexibility is the same etc etc. You want Aliens, these are shipping NOW. $60 shipped for a single or $54 each if you get a whole set (10% off a set). This is a STEAL as this is the same pricing that I recall way back in 2002 when I got my first aliens. Add to that the fact that they're QUALITY CAMS and this seems like a no-brainer.

OK, so what's new and / or different? There ARE changes to the Basics Cams so I'll try and cover them as best I can.

First, at the cam/head end: The cam lobes have had their "teeth" rounded over on the edges. I like this a lot as this is pretty much what would happen to the old CCH ones after some use anyway. Just a more finished product IMO. The Trigger wires are now wires terminated with little "crimped balls". This is different than the most recent CCH stuff that used solid wire. More like older CCH circa 2004. Totem does put a "Crimped Ball" on the upper trigger bar to prevent the hated "cam tipping" you'd see in old CCH stuff. Nice. Lastly, Totem uses a slightly different axel termination method (Peened I believe vs the old nut and threaded bar) This actually makes he head width SLIGHTLY smaller on the new Totems. Again, nice.

Totem Basic Cam: Head

Note the crimped ball to block cam tipping.

Moving down, Totem uses a woven sheath like the last of the CCH designs. I like this more than the old wire mesh as I think it made them slightly more flexible. Totem addresses durability concerns by adding a SECOND sheath over the first that is free to rotate. Simple and probably effective. Time will tell but I like it so far.

Totem Basic Cam double trigger sheath.

Finally, the thumb loop area: Totem uses a slightly larger swage at the loop. The colored tubing is also translucent vs the old CCH opaque coloring. The Totem Offset sizing DON'T have the bi-coloring that the old CCH ones did. Instead, Totem makes the tubing the smaller color size and the web loop the larger color ala the Metoilus Offset Master Cams. The Totem tubing also seems thicker/beefier than the old CCH. I like this as it gives the thumb loop a bit more resistance to elongation and thus keeps the strength a bit higher (See BDs QC blog for info on thumb loop wires compressing and cutting the webbing HERE )

All in all, a really nice re-issue of the loved design.

There ARE however some differences. Namely, the sizing of the cams is SLIGHTLY different than the original CCH ones. A Red Totem Basic is NOT the same as an old Red CCH.

With my calipers the Old CCH Red = 1.3in MAX
the new Totem = 1.25in MAX

Slightly SMALLER.

The Yellow Totem is slightly smaller than the old CCH Yellow
The Green Totem is also slightly smaller than the old CCH Green.

Mikel (Totem Engineer) confirmed the slight size tweaking with me via email back when they first came out. The sizing adjustment was done to avoid the sizing gap in the original CCH range that required the Grey 7/8in size to be introduced. Comparing the NEW Totem red to the OLD Red and Gray CCH, I'd say the Totem Red is closer to the old CCH grey in size.

L to R: CCH 7/8 Gray, Totem Basic .95 Red, CCH 1 Red

So this sizing difference MAY be a deal breaker for some. I doubt it will be for me since I always liked the wider .5 BD in the Red CCH range (and now have a Purple Totem for narrow placements in the range). This is the BIG difference of course.

Regarding sizes, I don't mind that Totem doesn't have a blue or smaller cam. I think the Metolius Master Cams are the better choice in that range (Blue and Purple Master Cams) since the head width is smaller than the old style CCH ones used to be and the cams are the harder 7075 reducing lobe deformations issues the smallest aliens suffered from.

Top to Bottom: Blue Metolius Master Cam Green Totem Basic Cam Blue/Green CCH Hybrid (to show width of a Blue CCH that I don't have any more)

So I'm stoked that I have a reliable Alien again. It's a more polished design with changes that I like. The one hitch for some MIGHT be sizing changes but I doubt that will bother most people. If so Fixe has their Carbon Copy on the way (at some point). Bottom line is we now have AT LEAST one reputable manufacturer making the Alien again and you can get it NOW. Sweet.

New Totem Red on Top Old CCH on Bottom

Thanks Matt. Great description. From your pictures, it looks like the new Aliens have been done very well. I like the ball to keep the cams from tipping... I have had to make my own sort of modification to keep the old Aliens from getting off center.

I'm interested in the size difference. It sounds like they just refined the line a bit to get rid of the grey, but in my experience you don't really need the grey with the old Aliens, at least not when free climbing.

There has been exactly one time in my life that I really needed a grey Alien, but I hardly ever notice not having one. If you look at BD sizes, the .4 is almost exactly the same as a yellow Alien while the .5 is nearly identical to a red. No one is asking for a .45 C4 now are they?

Get out and climb some finger cracks and let us know if you notice the difference!

What's the cam angle?

JLP wrote:I think it's also important to note that they are tested to 60% rated strength. The rated strengths are less than Aliens were rated to. Not sure if Totem is using 3 sigma test data - probably something similar. This would make for a smaller, more realistic and industry accepted number. CCH stated their estimated ultimate strength, which no other gear manufacturer does anymore, that I know of. For example, for the Green size: CCH - rated 2500 lbs, tested to 1750 lbs Totem - rated 7 kn = 1574 lbs, tested to 60% = 944 lbs For the Red: CCH - rated 2700 lbs, tested to 1750 lbs Totem - rated 11kn = 2473 lbs, tested to 60% = 1484 lbs So, that's another difference - they're rated and tested a little lower - probably based more on science and standard manf practice than guessing. You can't compare ultimate failure strength between the two from the available data. I would guess it's pretty close to the same... I think the new sizes and expansion ranges are also a function of a different cam angle? I don't see anything on their site. It does appear to be the same lobe material - 6061-T6. Too bad they couldn't design out the brazing...

Totem States on their Website a 16deg cam angle which is the same as the CCH ones (I think - if you got a well made one)

Somewhere on the internet, Mikel (a totem engineer) noted something about the strength testing. I think it was something like CE testing requires cams to be deployed differently than the CCH aliens were...

EDIT: Found it
The Totem ratings are on CE test conditions (1/4 cam closure).
CCH Alien ratings are on 80% cam closure conditions.
That's the difference. CE tests (or UIAA, the test are the same) are for %25 and %75 cam closure. The poorest results in strength are obtained always with %25 cam closure, where at small sizes, lobes overcamming happens. Mikel from Totem

mattm wrote: Totem States on their Website a 16deg cam angle which is the same as the CCH ones (I think - if you got a well made one) Somewhere on the internet, Mikel (a totem engineer) noted something about the strength testing. I think it was something like CE testing requires cams to be deployed differently than the CCH aliens were... EDIT: Found it The Totem ratings are on CE test conditions (1/4 cam closure). CCH Alien ratings are on 80% cam closure conditions. That's the difference. CE tests (or UIAA, the test are the same) are for %25 and %75 cam closure. The poorest results in strength are obtained always with %25 cam closure, where at small sizes, lobes overcamming happens. Mikel from Totem

So does this mean that the Totems are weaker? The way it's worded, it seems that they were tested with a different cam closure than the CCH ones were thus giving them a weaker rating. Anyone??

JLP wrote: I missed that, but see it now. CCH states 16 as well on their website. I didn't realize CE would specify that level of detail for testing a product, a climbing product in particular.

Any lab would have strict control of testing procedures. They don't just toss in a product into an unmeasured jig and pull. Duhhh

Graham S wrote: So does this mean that the Totems are weaker? The way it's worded, it seems that they were tested with a different cam closure than the CCH ones were thus giving them a weaker rating. Anyone??

It is more like CCH was over stating the strength rating. In an effort to save the company they got a CE rating at the very end but the damage had already been done.

Aric Datesman's independent study was pretty damning of CCH.

GrandeCorda wrote: It is more like CCH was over stating the strength rating. In an effort to save the company they got a CE rating at the very end but the damage had already been done. Aric Datesman's independent study was pretty damning of CCH.

Not to thread drift but Aric's report was never as damning as most people made it out to be. I think all it truly accomplished was illustrating a lack in consistency in CCH's manufacturing quality and that they were over stating the strengths of their cams.

Go back and read Aric's report and look at the FAILURE strengths of the Aliens. They are pretty much right in line with what Totem rates the Basic Cams to and none of his tested aliens demonstrated the catastrophic failure mechanisms found in the "real world" failures (yes, some cables broke at the head as did some in the real world but look at the LOAD at which they failed. More than fine. The Souder's Crack Yellow Alien Failure comes to mind)
The problem CCH had was they had some bad apples get out. I suspect that the VAST VAST majority of Aliens were A-OK. The issue was that some truly had some issues with their quality control appear to suck. There was never really any detailed analysis of the FALLS TAKEN onto those failed Aliens. I suspect that some the falls could have contributed, in part, to the Alien's failure. That's not to say that some of those CCH failures were purely defects in the product. The Micah Dash Purple head popping one comes to mind. THOSE failures were clearly QC issues.
Now don't get me wrong. CCH screwed the pooch with how they handled the situation and the failures certainly put a bright spotlight onto the LACK of any QC and 3 Sigma manufacturing at CCH. That was ultimately what caused me to loose faith in my Aliens.

Aric's CCH Testing FAILURE LOADS vs Totem Rated Strengths for the same size:

Grey CCH : 10.59 kN / Totem Yellow 9kN, Red 11kN
CCH Yel : 9.34kN / Totem Yel 9kN
CCH Black 5.26kN / No Totem but the Metolius Master Cams in that size spec to 5kN
CCH Yel : 11.09kN / Totem Yel 9kN
CCh Yel : 11.29kN
CCH Red : 12.11kN / Totem Red : 11kN
CCH Red : 12.13kN
CCH Grey : 11.77kN
CCH Grey : 12.08kN
CCH Grey: 12.59kN
CCH Yel: 9.91kN / Totem Yel 9kN
CCH Yel: 12.62kN
CCH BLue: 8.13 kN / Met Purple Master 5kN
CCH BLue: 6.83kN
CCH Black: 4.52kN (lowest failure and the LOBES sheared off which was the typical mode of failure in the smaller sizes. Another reason why I'd go with Metolius and their harder lobes in the smallest sizes)

The takeaway from all that is that CCH was being generous with their ratings and had some inconsistency with their manufacturing but note that almost EVERY ONE Aric tested met or exceeded the specs given to CE tested cams from Totem and Metolius.

This is all water under the bridge of course since Totem now has QUALITY cams out that are CE tested and rated.

Get some Totems and let CCH drift into a history.

The Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

"lack in consistency in CCH's manufacturing quality and that they were over stating the strengths of their cams"

"CCH screwed the pooch with how they handled the situation and the failures certainly put a bright spotlight onto the LACK of any QC and 3 Sigma manufacturing at CCH. That was ultimately what caused me to loose faith in my Aliens."

That is pretty damning. People got seriously hurt. QC issues can KILL people in climbing. Add to that that CCH NEVER responded to the issues publicly. Did CCH change anything at all when shit hit the fan?? Some lame "pull test" so they could just throw the failures away, cover up and move on.

"This is all water under the bridge of course since Totem now has QUALITY cams out that are CE tested and rated."

I bet FEW people even know what the UIAA/CE ratings are. You can't just google it and read. You have to pay $$$ for them to send it to you.

I bet that most people would be shocked at how low the UIAA/CE rating is.

mattm wrote: Not to thread drift but Aric's report was never as damning as most people made it out to be. I think all it truly accomplished was illustrating a lack in consistency in CCH's manufacturing quality and that they were over stating the strengths of their cams. Go back and read Aric's report and look at the FAILURE strengths of the Aliens. They are pretty much right in line with what Totem rates the Basic Cams to and none of his tested aliens demonstrated the catastrophic failure mechanisms found in the "real world" failures (yes, some cables broke at the head as did some in the real world but look at the LOAD at which they failed. More than fine. The Souder's Crack Yellow Alien Failure comes to mind) The problem CCH had was they had some bad apples get out. I suspect that the VAST VAST majority of Aliens were A-OK. The issue was that some truly had some issues with their quality AND they were stressed in falls. There was never really any detailed analysis of the FALLS TAKEN onto those failed Aliens. I suspect that the falls could have contributed, in part, to the Alien "head popping". That's not to say that some of those CCH failures were BAD. The Micah Dash Purple head popping one comes to mind. THOSE failures were clearly QC issues. Now don't get me wrong. CCH screwed the pooch with how they handled the situation and the failures certainly put a bright spotlight onto the LACK of any QC and 3 Sigma manufacturing at CCH. That was ultimately what caused me to loose faith in my Aliens. Aric's CCH Testing FAILURE LOADS vs Totem Rated Strengths for the same size: Grey CCH : 10.59 kN / Totem Yellow 9kN, Red 11kN CCH Yel : 9.34kN / Totem Yel 9kN CCH Black 5.26kN / No Totem but the Metolius Master Cams in that size spec to 5kN CCH Yel : 11.09kN / Totem Yel 9kN CCh Yel : 11.29kN CCH Red : 12.11kN / Totem Red : 11kN CCH Red : 12.13kN CCH Grey : 11.77kN CCH Grey : 12.08kN CCH Grey: 12.59kN CCH Yel: 9.91kN / Totem Yel 9kN CCH Yel: 12.62kN CCH BLue: 8.13 kN / Met Purple Master 5kN CCH BLue: 6.83kN CCH Black: 4.52kN (lowest failure and the LOBES sheared off which was the typical mode of failure in the smaller sizes) The takeaway from all that is that CCH was being generous with their ratings and had some inconsistency with their manufacturing but note that almost EVERY ONE Aric tested met or exceeded the specs given to CE tested cams from Totem and Metolius. This is all water under the bridge of course since Totem now has QUALITY cams out that are CE tested and rated. Get some Totems and let CCH drift into a history.

The new Totem Basics do look cool. See if the can keep up with demand. Good price too.

We will see how things go with Fixe Fader as well. Those will be the exact copy with the name and same assembly.

Any one see the BIG PRICE bump with the new Wild Country Helium. Sheeesh

love it, these look very nice. I admit I might try some.........

BASE1361 wrote:The Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. "lack in consistency in CCH's manufacturing quality and that they were over stating the strengths of their cams" "CCH screwed the pooch with how they handled the situation and the failures certainly put a bright spotlight onto the LACK of any QC and 3 Sigma manufacturing at CCH. That was ultimately what caused me to loose faith in my Aliens." That is pretty damning. People got seriously hurt. QC issues can KILL people in climbing. Add to that that CCH NEVER responded to the issues publicly. Did CCH change anything at all when shit hit the fan?? Some lame "pull test" so they could just throw the failures away, cover up and move on. "This is all water under the bridge of course since Totem now has QUALITY cams out that are CE tested and rated." I bet FEW people even know what the UIAA/CE ratings are. You can't just google it and read. You have to pay $$$ for them to send it to you. I bet that most people would be shocked at how low the UIAA/CE rating is.

I'm not saying there wasn't plenty of damning stuff out there, just that I didn't view the Alien Testing report by AD as contributing to that damning in any significant way. The truly damning ones for me were Russ Walling's blue alien popping at 900lbs and the IC purple with the SAME head popping issue at the braze.

JLP wrote: Oh fucking god, please don't. CE is not a lab. They don't create specs, either. In this case, they are citing UIAA as the applicable spec and holding the company to it through an audit.

Thanks for showing us how ignorant you are.

I wonder how much time has to go by before we can talk about the new Totem and/or Fixe cams without having to sort through the repetitive CCH comments and all of the internet bitch-fests that ensue.

They will forever be linked.

Those that ignore history will repeat it.

johnL wrote:JLP CCH heated their lobes in a furnace after deburring. I was always told that this was for hardening. I was too young and only doing grunt work, I'm not actually sure what this accomplished. I don't think the proper hardness lobes will be a problem anywhere but a few types of rock that I'd rather bolt anyway.

Heated it in a furnace as in annealing? Depending on how hot exactly they heated the metal to, the metal reaches a recrystallization temperature which makes the metal softer, not harder (anywhere from 200 to 800 degrees Celsius, I don't know the exact recrystallization range for 6061-t6.) So my guess is both you and JLP are right. It's the same metal, but the annealing process made the CCH lobes softer.

That's just some general knowledge, it's been a while since I've studied annealing properties. Someone correct me if that's way off the mark.

Edit to add: The annealing process hardens the material if heated to a certain temperature. Generally the temperature to harden after annealing is much much lower than the recrystallization temperature range. So i guess i just depends on how hot they heated it. Perhaps they thought that they were hardening the lobes when in fact they were heating them too hot and were actually softening them?

BASE1361 wrote:They will forever be linked. Those that ignore history will repeat it.

Totally agree, but I for one am tired of reading about Aric, CE, UIAA, testing... it's a dead issue. I just wish we could take these new cams for what they are - a new version of a revolutionary design. It's not like every time someone brings up Camalots we have to talk about how Chouinard went bankrupt.

Ryan Williams wrote: Totally agree, but I for one am tired of reading about Aric, CE, UIAA, testing... it's a dead issue. I just wish we could take these new cams for what they are - a new version of a revolutionary design. It's not like every time someone brings up Camalots we have to talk about how Chouinard went bankrupt.

another vote for that. Lets just go climbing!

squiddo wrote: another vote for that. Lets just go climbing!

+2

Totem makes quality cams.

mattm wrote: +2 Totem makes quality cams.

+3.

Hey Matt, do you like the Totems or the basics better for the smaller sizes (blue and yellow Totem)? I haven't gotten to climb on my Basics yet, but if they place like aliens I may be leaning more towards the Totems still.

JLP wrote: Measuring hardness isn't an exact science, especially with "affordable" equipment.

Just FYI, it actually is a rather exact science, especially when the equipment I used to obtain my results wouldn't fall into anything close to an "affordable" category. And BTW I also sent samples out for 3rd party testing to confirm my results.

JLP wrote: 6061-T6 is the #1 most common Al fab material out there by a large margin, and there are relatively few places making it because it isn't cheap nor easy to do. The largest customers - ie a place like Boeing - are going to be certain the metal they buy from these places is as advertized, using "unaffordable" tests and equipment. This is way out of the league of the climbing gear industry, but the controls are there, I'm nearly certain, unless CCH was buying their metal from the Congo or something.

Not to argue, but this is incorrect. There are plenty of US-based extrusion companies that do affordable short run custom work and are willing to provide material certifications for their products. Off the top of my head are Mid-States Aluminum and Iowa Aluminum, both of which will do quantities of under 500 pounds. There's also a place in NJ that charges by piece, not weight, but I'm blanking on their name at the moment. Point being you don't need to be Boeing to be able to get certified material; all you need to do is ask the supplier to provide the certification. Given the variation in hardness of CCH's lobes they clearly didn't care what they got or did something to the extrusions they received, but that's another discussion entirely.

Back on topic though, I'm very excited to see how well finished Totem's offering is and have little doubt they'll work quite well.