Cam purchase advice

Kevin, I wouldn't bother with the totems for RRG, x4's are awesome for .5 and smaller.  Mastercams are good for smaller sides too. 

DrRockso wrote:

Kevin, I wouldn't bother with the totems for RRG, x4's are awesome for .5 and smaller.  Mastercams are good for smaller sides too. 

This might be fine advice if you were to never climb anywhere but RRG.

that guy named seb wrote:

This might be fine advice if you were to never climb anywhere but RRG.

For the weight and price difference I would never recommend someone buy a bunch of totems as their first rack. Unless OP plans on getting on a bunch of aid climbs or difficult to protect thin crack climbs, I don't think he would see the added utility out of the totems, but I guess YMMV.

DrRockso wrote:

For the weight and price difference I would never recommend someone buy a bunch of totems as their first rack.

Totems are more expensive, but cam for cam, Totems are lighter than C4s.

This shouldn't be construed as advising someone to buy a bunch of Totems as their first rack, though. As I said upthread, I think having more cams in a broader range of sizes is more important than having the best cams (though I do believe that Totems are the best cams for at least all but the top of their size range).

I'd probably second the idea of getting a set of BD C4s from .3-3 and some master cams to fill in, say 00-4. This is a solid workhorse rack, although the new WC cams could easily substitute as better C4s. Totems are great and I love mine but I just keep a single set and mix it up with some aliens and master cams and bigger C4s. For the really small stuff I very occasionally break out C3s and a variety of misc tiny stoppers. There's definitely value in learning sizing in C4s and metolius as they form the basis of comparison for most other brands and are what you will supplement with from other folks racks most often. 

Bottom line though is it depends on what your local rock demands. I do a lot of climbing where irregular cracks are the norm and funky narrow head placements are good to be able to cover. But... I just came back from going further afield and was perfectly happy plugging C4s in parallel cracks. They do bump better than totems for sure. 

Personally I don't like TCUs of any brand anymore (C3s are sort of different) or U-stems in general - too easy to make them walk, too wide, and sometimes hard to see what the cam lobes are doing. 

Definitely worth seeing how the weights of the various types compare and feel in your hand and on your harness. 

John Wilder wrote:

I climbed on them for a while and liked them- they're neat, have alot of cool features, but ultimately I shelved them because the problem they were designed to solve (holding in a flared crack) just wasn't a big issue for me.

I guess what I don't understand about this line of reasoning is that there's nothing about the Totems' design that prevents you from using them in parallel cracks too. People keep saying they're a specialty piece, but they work in every placement a C4 would work in, so unless C4s are also specialty pieces, that doesn't make sense. Totems are strictly a more general piece than C4s because they work in a wider variety of placements. They work in flared cracks AND parallel cracks. If you can have cam that works in parallel AND flared cracks, and the difference in cost isn't an issue, I'm not sure why you'd choose a cam that only works in parallel cracks. Even if 95% of the cracks you see are perfectly parallel, that other 5% isn't nothing, and sometimes it's important.

dindolino32 wrote:  As far as placing at your furthest reach, you should place at your waist anyway.  

Do you inspect your placements with your wiener?  

Matt Westlake wrote:

I'd probably second the idea of getting a set of BD C4s from .3-3 and some master cams to fill in, say 00-4. 

I find the .3 and .4 C4s too wide and bulky to be helpful. They just don't fit in the pods and cracks of that size as well as an X4/Mastecam

drock3 wrote:

I find the .3 and .4 C4s too wide and bulky to be helpful. They just don't fit in the pods and cracks of that size as well as an X4/Mastecam

Agreed.  I love C4's,  placing in a splitter crack or a horizontal downward facing crack where they have the room they are super confidence inspiring.  I find in the smaller sizes I would often be placing them on 3 lobes in pin scars because of how wide they are.  More narrow cams like MC's don't have this problem.   Also something i've noticed with the single axle design of the master cam is they tent to have a rounder profile when retracted which goes in pin scars better than the longer oval profile of a dual axel cam like a C4 when it's a tight fit.  I notice it a lot with my .75 size.  

greggrylls wrote:

Agreed.  I love C4's,  placing in a splitter crack or a horizontal downward facing crack where they have the room they are super confidence inspiring.  I find in the smaller sizes I would often be placing them on 3 lobes in pin scars because of how wide they are.  More narrow cams like MC's don't have this problem.   Also something i've noticed with the single axle design of the master cam is they tent to have a rounder profile when retracted which goes in pin scars better than the longer oval profile of a dual axel cam like a C4 when it's a tight fit.  I notice it a lot with my .75 size.  

I'll third this and second the latter point. I've found that when my .75 c4 is a little fiddly the 4/5 MC fits really well and is really confidence inspiring. I picked up .5-3 c4 initially and am glad I did. Some partners aren't into the .3/.4 X4 over their c4s, but I feel like they're slightly more versatile.

This threads inspired me to grab a couple of c3s if anything and go play with some basics.

Chris Reyes wrote:

I'll third this and second the latter point. I've found that when my .75 c4 is a little fiddly the 4/5 MC fits really well and is really confidence inspiring. I picked up .5-3 c4 initially and am glad I did. Some partners aren't into the .3/.4 X4 over their c4s, but I feel like they're slightly more versatile.

This threads inspired me to grab a couple of c3s if anything and go play with some basics.

I'll fourth it, I prefer narrower cams in .5 and below, I always seem to find placements that a C4 can't quite fit width wise in those sizes. 

On the .75 note, that's the largest totem I have and it's head width is narrower than my c4. In alpine climbing it's gone in a lot of awkard placements that a c4 just wasn't quite right. That said I wouldn't run out and buy doubles of totems.

I love having C3s, when my blue alien is just a hair too wide the green 0 has always been perfect. Just sling em a little longer so they don't walk, they definitely don't have the flexible stem advantage of MC/basics. I would not recommend going up to yellow either.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

EDIT: One thing to note when comparing cam sizings is that Metolius reports effective range, while (AFAIK) every other manufacturer reports the full range of the cams, which is misleading because the full range includes ranges where the cam is so undercammed it won't work. Metolius' numbers don't look as good, but that's only because other manufacturers are reporting a misleading upper range number.

Maybe that was the case many years ago, but that has changed. At the bottom of the cams page and on each individual cam model page there is a link titled "Cam Range Chart". In this link you will find Metolius cam ranges in usable and maximum/minimum ranges in inches and millimeters. Very easy to line up what they sell with other brands this way. 

Kevin, see what you've started ;) 

anotherclimber wrote:

Maybe that was the case many years ago, but that has changed. At the bottom of the cams page and on each individual cam model page there is a link titled "Cam Range Chart". In this link you will find Metolius cam ranges in usable and maximum/minimum ranges in inches and millimeters. Very easy to line up what they sell with other brands this way. 

Interesting. I remember hearing about this, but I'd completely forgotten. Was thinking about replacing my x4 .1/.2 with MC equivalents because of the floppiness, but the range difference had me put it off. With some new math it's not as bad.

John Wilder wrote:

Three reasons:

1) C4's also work in flared cracks, just not wildly flared ones- and even Totems have their limits here. 

2) Totem's are REALLY bulky and are much more complicated than C4s- this is what makes them a specialty piece. 

3) I've climbed several thousand pitches on gear, and I can't remember the last time a Totem would have been the difference between safety and injury/death on a route. Does it happen? Probably. Does it happen even 1% of the time? Probably not.

It seems the most ardent supporters of new(fangled) gear designs are quite often the least experienced climbers.  

John Wilder wrote:

2) Totem's are REALLY bulky and are much more complicated than C4s- this is what makes them a specialty piece. 

I acknowledge that they're bulkier, but that hasn't been a problem for me. As for being more complicated, sure, from an engineering perspective they are more complicated, but that doesn't really translate into them being more complicated to use.

Neither of these objections really makes it a "specialty piece" IMO. A specialty piece to me means that it is only useful in a specific situation. By similar logic I could say C4s are specialty pieces because of their weight, but I don't think that's what a "specialty piece" means.

3) I've climbed several thousand pitches on gear, and I can't remember the last time a Totem would have been the difference between safety and injury/death on a route. Does it happen? Probably. Does it happen even 1% of the time? Probably not.

This might be a product of the different rock we climb on, but in uneven cracks or horizontals, it's quite frequent that a placement isn't secure with a C4, but is with a Totem. It's true that there are almost always other placements available, but it's more difficult to find them. It's true that in those cases it's not the difference between safety and injury/death, but it IS the difference between a easy, pleasurable placement and searching for a good placement while the pump clock is ticking.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I acknowledge that they're bulkier, but that hasn't been a problem for me. As for being more complicated, sure, from an engineering perspective they are more complicated, but that doesn't really translate into them being more complicated to use.

Neither of these objections really makes it a "specialty piece" IMO. A specialty piece to me means that it is only useful in a specific situation. By similar logic I could say C4s are specialty pieces because of their weight, but I don't think that's what a "specialty piece" means.

This might be a product of the different rock we climb on, but in uneven cracks or horizontals, it's quite frequent that a placement isn't secure with a C4, but is with a Totem. It's true that there are almost always other placements available, but it's more difficult to find them. It's true that in those cases it's not the difference between safety and injury/death, but it IS the difference between a easy, pleasurable placement and searching for a good placement while the pump clock is ticking.

Why would a horizontal placement be insecure with a C4?

Bowens wrote:

Why would a horizontal placement be insecure with a C4?

It usually would be fine, but in some cases, the stiffer stem causes it to "turn" in the placement when given a downward tug. This is particularly true for shallower cracks.

This effect also happens with more flexibly-stemmed cams, but it's less pronounced.

John Wilder wrote:

1) If you don't understand what makes the Totem more complicated to use than a regular cam, I would suggest you re-read the manual on their use. Yes, they do have a 'standard use' mechanism, but when they are used outside that use, things get tricky with them quickly.

Right, but we were talking about this for free climbing, where the standard use is pretty much all that is of concern. I've never used the Totems outside their standard use mechanism, and given I have no interest (so far) in aid climbing, I probably never will.

2) It's not quite frequent that a placement isn't secure with a C4 if you have alot of experience placing gear. Based on your posts here, I think the difference between us comes down to time and rate on the rock. 

This is becoming a pretty frequent MP answer: "if you don't like the same thing I like, you must be doing something wrong or it's because you're inexperienced". Could we possibly just chalk this up to preference instead, or does every discussion on MP have to be about our personalities rather than our shared hobby?

Look, I like Totem cams, I like Mikel (the owner)- I think they're really cool cams. That said, they're not the answer to everything, and I would suspect that Mikel himself would tell you that your statement about slamming a Totem in where a C4 wouldn't go because you assume it will hold in that spot is probably not the best approach. 

I didn't say any of this.

Placing good, solid gear is something that comes with alot of experience. People who look for the short, quick, and easy way out by buying gear like Totems (or, a few years ago, Link Cams), are only short changing themselves in the long run. Specialty gear like Totems and Link cams absolutely have their place, and I would recommend them for that, but placing good gear in good rock is something that you can't skip over by buying something fancy. There is no substitute for experience when it comes to placing traditional protection.

"Experience is valuable" is a point that nobody would disagree with you on. "Fancy gear won't solve all your problems" is also not something anyone would disagree with you on. I certainly didn't say anything disagreeing with either of those claims.

All I'm saying is that in the hands of equally skilled practitioners, a Totem Cam can be placed in almost all the free climbing situations where a C4 can, and some where a C4 can't. That may or may not be enough of a benefit to justify the extra cost of the Totems: that depends on your budget.

WTF are totem cams? I don't know anyone who uses those, weird to see so much love for them lately. WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE WITH YOUR MYSTERIOUS TOTEM CAMS??? I really like tricams, AM I A COOL GUY NOW TOO??

I use c4's. They're fine. I don't climb hard finger cracks so I don't have much need for small gear (shrugs). I have one of the new wild country cams (got it from a raffle) and I don't care much for it -- it's just slightly harder to place than a c4 of similar size. I think c4's just have a better range.