FrictionLabs chalk: lots of false statements in their website. I would not trust them

Screw MgCO3 mixes:

I love FrictionLabs chalk... but not nearly enough to justify the price difference. Yes, it is better. Is it double the price better? No.

There's been a lot of talk about the original testing not being rigorous or precise enough. So who's gonna step up and actually do side-by-side testing with FrictionLabs and all the leading chalk brands??

I have used this friction Labs chalk and I liked it. It is very expensive also so I was happy when I won some for a raffle.

That company reeked of pyramid scheme the moment I saw their advertising.

Friction labs chalk seems to be the diet water of the climbing world.

christoph benells wrote:how long is it going to take before these insta people realize there is no money in climbing, no fame, and living in a car is not cool.

When their parents stop giving them money for food and covering their phone bill?

I feel like such a noob. I though having chalk on your hands actually makes things more slippery, and the idea was to apply chalk to dry out your hands, then remove as much as possible, before continuing climbing (blow it off). Holds are brushed off to remove chalk, yeah?

If any chalk is advertising that it sticks to your hands longer, that's not what I'd be looking for. That's also why liquid chalk seemed to be a head scratcher, too.

I wonder about the basic premise that magnesium carbonate is better than calcium carbonate. Where does that come from? I thought the idea of using natural calcium carbonate chalk was largely on the idea that the extremely high internal porosity and surface area of coccoliths and foraminifera is very effective at drying because it binds water by capillary action. The same binding effect, augmented with lattice vacancies for water, would seem to be true of other things, like silica diatoms, clay minerals, zeolites and wairikites, but those other materials have detrimental properties that calcium and magnesium carbonates do not have. Anyone have any idea why purer mag carbonate would be better than calcium carbonate, or a mixture of the two?

Greg Twombly wrote:Anyone have any idea why purer mag carbonate would be better than calcium carbonate, or a mixture of the two?

That might be the ultimate question. Who's to say pure Mg is better? The real test is if it WORKS BETTER. And we don't need no stinkin' X-Ray diffractometer to evaluate THAT.

Jorge Pantalones wrote:On a more personal note, There's a guy selling Friction Labs chalk at my local climbing gym. He passes it off as though he's extending his ambassador discount to us but I know for sure it's been stepped on. I'm pretty sure he's just cutting it with Frank Endo blocks. I'm afraid that if a pure batch ever makes it's way around the gym people are going to get hurt, maybe even die. I really want to speak up but I don't want to be labeled a narc and get alienated. Right now they let me sit with them, cross legged, in front of the bouldering wall; I know I should say something but I don't want to be cast out.

watch your back, snitch

Hi, everyone.
People seem to be looking for flaws in the SEM/EDX analysis. Of course there is detection limit in the EDX dictator and of course there are better instruments to do the job. This instrument is just what I have access to and the test is quick.
And I would argue that if there were 10% Ca atoms and 90% Mg atoms in the chalk, the instrument would be able to detect Ca. If you have 1% Ca and 99% Mg, then maybe not.
Anyone with a science background can easily google "EDX detection limit" and can get an general idea about the detection limit. For Ca, if it's a few weight %, it should be detectable. Just do your own research, it doesn't take that much time.

The majority of the post is not about my own analysis, but about FrictionLabs's (false?) statements without showing any scientific evidence. Anyone with a college degree in materials science should be able to see that.
I would just encourage everyone to think about what they say and think more carefully. And investigate this yourself. Don't just trust what I said.

Someone mentioned that the food supplement type of MgCO3 doesn't work. Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know that. I guess the particle size for food grade MgCO3 is much larger than climbing chalk.

I said early on that i haven't used their chalk. I just don't like their market scheme. It just appears to be every misleading even before i did any analysis on my Metolius chalk.

I just think that climbers as a community should discourage this type of false market scheme. It's bad for the community.

Little Flower

Forget FrictionLabs chalk. Upsalite is the next big thing :)
"Upsalite is a new form of non-toxic magnesium carbonate with an extremely porous surface area which allows it to absorb more moisture at low humidities than any other known material."
Source: gizmag.com/upsalite-impossi…
Company website: disruptivematerials.com/

I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy the fact that I don't need chalk. When I get on the wall, my head and ass might sweat like a roofer in July but my hands instantly dry up, and I love it. The few times I've tried chalk, I found it to be more a nuisance than anything else.

this is their response to this thread posted on Facebook:


we appreciate you letting us know. We all can see that there are at least 10 easy holes to poke in that post; it just isn't worth it. After a couple years of doing this, we've learned one thing: haters gon' hate. We used to care about trying to prove a point to every naysayer. Now we just let our product speak for itself. The biggest honor is seeing how many people stick up for us without us having to say a thing. It makes our day and it fuels us to keep going. We won't win everybody over, and that's ok. Plus, we believe healthy skepticism is a good thing - it's what allowed us to think differently about chalk to begin with, and it's what still keeps us on our toes.

Good looking out, though. Thank you.

They also said: Hey Thomas, as was pointed out later in the thread, the techniques the writer is using to evaluate aren't sound. We can go back and forth on the science all day - that's how science works. We used to try to debate things like this, but it just isn't worth it because "experts" are everywhere online and it turns into a big waste of time. All we can do is let our product speak for itself. There's a reason the best climbers in the world swear by our chalk - it certainly isn't because we pay them. There's a reason multiple blind climbers say our chalk gives them better feel. There's a reason so many people come to our defense in that thread and say our chalk does make a difference without us having to say a word. Science is helpful, but it can only go so far - people still say the Earth is flat, evolution doesn't happen, Gatorade and Nike shoes are worthless, etc. Healthy skepticism is a good thing - it's what allowed us to think differently about chalk to begin with, and it's what still keeps us on our toes. Don't fully trust what we or anyone else says. Try it for yourself and see what you think!

this is their response to this thread posted on Facebook: we appreciate you letting us know. We all can see that there are at least 10 easy holes to poke in that post; it just isn't worth it. After a couple years of doing this, we've learned one thing: haters gon' hate. We used to care about trying to prove a point to every naysayer.

Ahh the good ol' "Hater goin hate" technique. Do you think they learned that at 123mountain?

That reply reads to me like a combination of, "science? who needs it?" and, "we're cool, see guys on the internet are backing us up!"

An odd response for a company who has claimed that their product is scientifically better.

I've not tried their product but when I first saw it I thought it was "spice" or fake weed since the packaging looks similar - but loose chalk has always looked like coke so?

And then the other day at REI I heard an employee say to a co-worker "oh nice, coffee?!" when he saw a customer bring it to the register lol

20 kN wrote:this is their response to this thread posted on Facebook: we appreciate you letting us know. We all can see that there are at least 10 easy holes to poke in that post; it just isn't worth it. After a couple years of doing this, we've learned one thing: haters gon' hate. We used to care about trying to prove a point to every naysayer. Now we just let our product speak for itself. The biggest honor is seeing how many people stick up for us without us having to say a thing. It makes our day and it fuels us to keep going. We won't win everybody over, and that's ok. Plus, we believe healthy skepticism is a good thing - it's what allowed us to think differently about chalk to begin with, and it's what still keeps us on our toes. Good looking out, though. Thank you. They also said: Hey Thomas, as was pointed out later in the thread, the techniques the writer is using to evaluate aren't sound. We can go back and forth on the science all day - that's how science works. We used to try to debate things like this, but it just isn't worth it because "experts" are everywhere online and it turns into a big waste of time. All we can do is let our product speak for itself. There's a reason the best climbers in the world swear by our chalk - it certainly isn't because we pay them. There's a reason multiple blind climbers say our chalk gives them better feel. There's a reason so many people come to our defense in that thread and say our chalk does make a difference without us having to say a word. Science is helpful, but it can only go so far - people still say the Earth is flat, evolution doesn't happen, Gatorade and Nike shoes are worthless, etc. Healthy skepticism is a good thing - it's what allowed us to think differently about chalk to begin with, and it's what still keeps us on our toes. Don't fully trust what we or anyone else says. Try it for yourself and see what you think!

This is a hilarious response from frictionlabs... i'm surprised they haven't astroturfed this thread as badly as they astroturf other forums

Torren wrote:This reminds me of the time I shot tequila into my GC/MS in grad school. With respect to your methods I don't think EDX is the best (or cheapest) since you only sample a small area with your beam and do not get an average of the bulk sample. I.e. you are getting composition of a few particles at a time which may not be representative of the bulk chalk. If you were to sample many particles you would be spending a lot of microspopy time and wasting money. I also don't think XRD would be good either since you will only measure crystalline material. There is probably quite a bit of amorphous material in chalk so XRD could be misleading. I would probably use ICP since that is a bulk characterization method and is quite sensitive (ppm level). Full disclosure: I have a Ph.D. in chemical engineering with an extensive materials characterization background. I use whatever chalk is cheapest!

I'll give a +1 for ICP here. I've used it for nanoparticle characterization. See below for an interesting ICP video.

youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0p…

20 kN wrote:this is their response to this thread posted on Facebook...

This is actually very classic form of bullshit-artistry historically exercised first by the cigarette industry and later by the oil industry in response to growing evidence of climate change. Of course, in this case there are no actual experts whatsoever and no real evidence to back anyone up, because nobody cares about stupid chalk. But, as the OP has pretty clearly demonstrated, these guys are shady as f*ck, so I won't be buying chalk from them (not that I would anyway at that price).