Small cams - how low do you go?

Purple c3 is about the lowest size cam I will go if I have a choice. I could maybe see building several grey c3s as an equilized piece. I prefer the ballnutz when it gets that small. They have a bigger fall rating than their equivalent sized cam. I've witnessed a 30 footer onto the smallest ballnutz by a 200+ lb. guy. So it has me somewhat confident. They can be hard to clean in a fall like that, but it did its job. Not sure why Carbondale Short Bus wasn't climbed on ballnutz.

Has anyone used Metolius newer green 000 tcu? Opinions?

Yeah, as far as the "you don't need microcams until the higher grades" mentality:

mountainproject.com/v/wiess…

Granted, a 5.7 at Devil's Lake would be a 10 out west, but still...

Better to have something as long as you have something between you and the ground/ledge that you believe is bomber. Double or triple up mediocre placements as one might work or all three equalized could do it. The thought that it might hold calms me down and allows me to climb better. I also never commit to a section unless I am pretty damn sure I will not fall if that fall will lead to an injury or death. Been at it 40 years and this has kept me from serious injury. Be careful out there.

Doesn't anyone use a screamer on these tiny cams?

Ted Pinson wrote:Yeah, as far as the "you don't need microcams until the higher grades" mentality: mountainproject.com/v/wiess… Granted, a 5.7 at Devil's Lake would be a 10 out west, but still...

A 5.7 at Devil's Lake would be a 5.4 in the Gunks.

bearbreeder wrote:well with metolius you theoretically have "more" to work with ... since they are 13.25 deg, the"narrowest" of any common cam

Which makes them worse in flares not better!

But that is besides the point. That placement is clearly in extremely slick granite. If you considers cams in slick rock satisfactory then fine, thats your lookout. I would be very wary of cams in slick rock. Even if a crack is totally parallel, a cam won't hold in highly polished rock.

bearbreeder wrote:nope it was as "textbook" as you could get with a draw on it ...

There is nothing "textbook" about placing cams if the rock is slick. It is abundantly clearly that our differences lie in what is considered a "good" placement.

patto wrote: Which makes them worse in flares not better! But that is besides the point. That placement is clearly in extremely slick granite. If you considers cams in slick rock satisfactory then fine, thats your lookout. I would be very wary of cams in slick rock. Even if a crack is totally parallel, a cam won't hold in highly polished rock. There is nothing "textbook" about placing cams if the rock is slick. It is abundantly clearly that our differences lie in what is considered a "good" placement.

a smaller camming angle limits the maximum flare at which theoretically holds ... but it would be interesting if someone can work our the math of what "holds better" in a very mild flare, say 1-2 deg ... in other words would there be a point at which a metolius cam would hold in slick rock when a BD wouldnt

but but but all those MP folks tell me that a cam that "looks good" would always hold =P

how many folks give a good solid pull to every cam they set? ... most dont i wager, they simply place it so that it looks good visually and "trust" it ... even some very experienced folks on MP have said they "eyeball" it and almost never pull test (they know who they are)

heres is some phun from what sounds like a very slick crack (insert joke here)

I took a ground fall on Hairy Interlude, after having a textbook, finger sized cam pulled on me as I fell onto it in the crux. Although I fell from 15+ feet up, I was very lucky and landed in the soft sand just next to a nasty looking boulder (walked away fine) My heels left 4 inch deep craters in the sand...

I realize that the smooth/polished stone, present on some of these lower highway Mt. Lemmon crags, can have perfect parallel sided cracks that look like textbook cam placements, but can actually lack in providing enough friction for the cam to hold in the crack. Another route that comes to mind with a similar hazard may be Crime and Punishment at Prison Camp. I noticed that Craig Randleman had a similar experience that he mentioned in his comment. I guess I was luckier than him and I hope to strive for more creative gear placements in this super smooth stone. A very creepy and eye opening moment for me in my 10 year climbing career.
-----------

Charles,
I was belaying Andrew. Originally he had a yellow alien in there and that pulled when he fell. We were both shocked as the placement looked pretty good. Later we set up a top rope to hang there and recreate the scenario. We put in the alien again, clipped a sling and stepped in it and it pulled repeatedly with less than full bodyweight. Then we put in an orange TCU with similar results. It definitely seemed like low friction was the largest contributing factor to the placement failing. It was not a failure mode I had given much thought to in the past and one that is concerning because it is tough to evaluate, but I will definitely be thinking about it now. Andrew was very lucky he missed that rock at the base.

----------

Wow...in October I caught a friend of mine on almost the exact same fall at the crux of this route. The 'perfect' finger sized cam at the crux pulled (under body weight, actually--she was hanging on the piece) and she narrowly missed hitting the ground. She had been trad climbing for many years with many falls and this was the first piece she had ever pulled in a fall. A cam down and left barely kept her off the ground.

Out of curiosity, what specific piece did you fall on, Andrew? She fell on an 0.4 camalot. In regards to Eric's comment, I recall that the crack does widen ever so slightly below the placement, so maybe that did have something to do with it. Does that sound like the spot where you placed the piece?

There is a bomber 0.75 camalot a couple feet above the placement that pulled. On her first attempt she had both pieces in and fell on the .75. However, as I recall the .4/yellow alien is easy to place from the stance below the crux, while the .75 must be placed mid-crux, depending on your height (I think it also takes up a good hold/jam). On her second attempt, with both of those pieces still in place, she climbed up, clipped only the .4 from the good stance, and hung. After a minute or so the piece blew.

In the photo of Jimbo above, it looks like he has both of these placements in.

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/hairy-interlude/107428848

regardless since we are talking about microcams on this thread ... the my advice is

- never trust a SINGLE microcam (or micronut) if you can help it ... its possible to exceed the rating of that cam in a fall, and cams can pull for reasons which are not readily apparent visually

- if you can get a solid micronut in ... not only are they rated higher for the same sizes, on a good constriction you can worry a bit less about the slickness of the rock (smoothness, grit, dampness) ...

- getting BOTH microcams and micronuts if you can ... they back each other up and complement each other ... the cams prevent upward pull on the nuts ... even better yet put in a bigger piece below

heres another "slick rock" vid just for you with multiple cam pulls ...

youtube.com/watch?v=UFUGHeq…;feature=player_embedded

bearbreeder wrote:... but it would be interesting if someone can work our the math of what "holds better" in a very mild flare, say 1-2 deg ... in other words would there be a point at which a metolius cam would hold in slick rock when a BD wouldnt ...

I'd like to see the experimental data to support that ... more out of curiosity than my depending on it for my life.

My eyes are not calibrated down to individual degrees.

bearbreeder wrote: ... and cams can pull for reasons which are not readily apparent visually...

True that. Of course, still aim for visual goodness.

Bill Lawry, you must be the only person who reads through bearbreeder's long posts, or at least takes time to take snippets here and there!

When you all place two microcams/nuts for backup, do you clip them with a sliding x etc, or just in series?

doligo wrote:Bill Lawry, you must be the only person who reads through bearbreeder's long posts, or at least takes time to take snippets here and there!

Even bear-bothering mosquitoes sometimes get their day in the sun. ;-)

sanz wrote:When you all place two microcams/nuts for backup, do you clip them with a sliding x etc, or just in series?

usually in series ... unless you got a really good stance to play with it, or are projecting and have the gear worked out and an equalization rig premade

if the micronut is the top piece and the microcam below, always in series, as the microcam in this case helps reduce the upward pull on the nut

on a side note ... if you have the luxury of an equally good micronut placement over a good microcam as your last piece before the crux (and providing you have more pieces below) ... always go for the micronut

not only does it take up less of your fingerlocks, micronuts of the same size of the cams are more durable and CHEAPER to replace ...

microcams cams get tweaked all the time even if they hold you ... if a nut gets to the point of retirement its only ~10 dollahs vs 60+ dollahs for a cam

especially if yr on a project and taking whippahs over an over again on it

the other point is that if you can extend those crux microcams with at least a draw, if not a sling .. a microcam that walks even slightly can easily fail ... especially where the cracks arent perfectly even at the microscale

;)

bearbreeder wrote: ... but it would be interesting if someone can work our the math of what "holds better" in a very mild flare, say 1-2 deg ...

I worked through the math once, and reached a surprising conclusion: In theory, the flare angle doesn't matter. A cam will hold if the coefficient of friction is high enough, and what that necessary value is doesn't depend on the crack's flare angle. Not intuitive to me. (and probably not true in practice, but that's what "the math" says).

The required coefficient of friction does depend on the cam's camming angle, so a Metolius will hold in slightly lower friction conditions compared to cams with a larger angle. And that's true for any crack, parallel/flaring/constricting/whatever.

kevin neville wrote: I worked through the math once, and reached a surprising conclusion: In theory, the flare angle doesn't matter. A cam will hold if the coefficient of friction is high enough, and what that necessary value is doesn't depend on the crack's flare angle. Not intuitive to me. (and probably not true in practice, but that's what "the math" says). The required coefficient of friction does depend on the cam's camming angle, so a Metolius will hold in slightly lower friction conditions compared to cams with a larger angle. And that's true for any crack, parallel/flaring/constricting/whatever.

I don't pretend to understand the reasoning and calculations behind it, but Rgold has said that Totem cams are MUCH better for flares. See if you can find those posts.

Gunkiemike wrote: I don't pretend to understand the reasoning and calculations behind it, but Rgold has said that Totem cams are MUCH better for flares. See if you can find those posts.

Do you mean this thread?
Supplement C4's with?

In it, he does speak well about the Totem cams relative to others. And he references their being able to handle flares better. But I don't think he meant that in the context of the current topic <- scratch that ... what he meant is not clear to me.

I was photographing for a guy who took a ground fall on C3 size 0 from five feet above it and the piece pulled. His back had some blood but nothing too bad. He jumped on another climb and protected a 40 foot run out with that same c3 size zero. Sometimes there's just no better placements and a chance of something catching you is better than no chance. A good belayer can really reduce the falling force as well.

Found a thread with input from the designer of the Totem Cam: username mapeze. Quite a bit of discussion there about how cams function in downard flares.

Test drive Totem Cam's

He chimes in at the top of the second page.

Gunkiemike wrote: I don't pretend to understand the reasoning and calculations behind it, but Rgold has said that Totem cams are MUCH better for flares. See if you can find those posts.

The reason is for this is that a cam can theoretically hold in a downward flare of 2 x the camming angle. Since the totem cams have a geometric camming angle of 21 degrees, they can theoretically hold if the crack flares up to 42 degrees.

If you're climbing on slick rock, use metolius cams or, better yet, a nut or tri-cam because low camming angle is better for slick rock

If you are climbing downward flaring cracks, use a high camming angle, meaning Totems or aliens.

patto wrote:I own a Green Wild Country ZERO. The second smallest cam on the market.

Take good care of it. They stopped making them a couple of years ago.