I made a tool to help you compare cams

Your numbers seem to be way off  for mastercams (UL & old).  I didn't check all of the numbers, but every one I checked was wrong.  E.g...

Metolius MC UL # 8

    Camparison : Max = 48.5 - 71.5 mm, Usable = 50.8 - 62.3 mm

    Metolius : Max = 48.7 - 77.4,  Usable = 49.0 - 71.1

See https://www.metoliusclimbing.com/cam-range.html  

Metolius tends to quote usable range in their product descriptions instead of max ranges, but the link above lists both.  I believe some other companies do the same (possibly Totem, I'll check after work), so you must be careful when comparing cam sizes to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

Edit : Forgot to say...  Nice app, by far the nicest cam comparison tool I've seen.  Thanks for your hard work.

Serge Smirnov wrote:

I'm assuming you meant "green & red"..

No I meant #1 red and #2 yellow C3s. The red squeezes between the X4 .2-.3 and the yellow fits nicely between the X4 .3-.4

Edit. I really like the site. Just needs a little tweaking.

Nice work!

Thanks for all your suggestions everyone!  I will try to implement most of this stuff.

Do you guys have any other thoughts on how to deal with the "usable" range?  I can just use what metolius has on their website, but for the manufacturers that don't list "usable", I'm currently using 10% and 60% of the max range.

Andy Lei wrote:

Thanks for all your suggestions everyone!  I will try to implement most of this stuff.

Do you guys have any other thoughts on how to deal with the "usable" range?  I can just use what metolius has on their website, but for the manufacturers that don't list "usable", I'm currently using 10% and 60% of the max range.

I'm not sure if any of the more...prolific posters on the forum have actual/better numbers - but rocknice posted an idea that I think hedges in the right direction. I don't know about the specific numbers.

rocknice2 wrote:

Yup totally agree.

What I would change is the % usable range. Below fingers 60%, fingers to off-finger up to 67% and hands up 75%

Thanks, this is super handy for figuring out which cam I don't really need next.

I added the Rock Empire and large WC Tech Friends.  I changed all the metolius cams to use the max and usable listed on the website.

For other cams' usable range, I used a linear scale that puts finger sized cams at 60% of the max range and up and hand sized cams at 75% of the max range and down.

It will probably take a few iterations to get the usable range logic right..   The following were represented correctly in the earlier version but no longer are:

 - the usable ranges of 0.4 and 0.5 camalots just barely touch

 - the usable ranges of #3 and #4 metolius don't even touch (there is a gap)

Considering variables like single-axle vs dual-axle, the most practical solution may be a partial data table.  I can contribute the following:

Camalot
 0.1: 9.5 - 11
 0.2: 11.5 - 13
 0.3: 14 - 16  (x4)
 0.3: 15 - 17  (c4)
 0.4: 17.5 - 20
 0.5: 22 - 26
 
Metolius
 1: 13.5 - 15
 2: 16.5 - 19
 3: 19.5 - 22
 4: 26 - 30

The challenge would be getting consistent measurements from different people for different cam brands.

Andy Lei wrote:

Thanks for all your suggestions everyone!  I will try to implement most of this stuff.

Do you guys have any other thoughts on how to deal with the "usable" range?  I can just use what metolius has on their website, but for the manufacturers that don't list "usable", I'm currently using 10% and 60% of the max range.

Personally, I don't think usable range is really that important for the purpose of comparison.  The most important thing for me whenever I am looking at any kind of comparison chart (for any products) is that I am comparing apples to apples.  Showing us the min/max ranges accomplishes that.  I'll decide what the usable range is when I place the cam.

When I see a cam charts showing usable range instead of min/max range, then I toss it out the window, because "usable range" is so ambiguous.  Is it manufacturers suggested range?  Do each of the manufacturers have the same Ideas about what a tipped out cam looks like?  Is it just 10%/60%?  For example, most people think that BD only provides min/max range specs for their cams.  However this is not exactly true.  If you look at the manual you will see this...

Which suggests that a BD is happy if you place your C4 almost completely tipped out.  Now if you measure a C4 and compare it to BD's specs, you will see, the actual measured max range is slightly greater than the reported one.  I suspect that the numbers that BD reports actually correspond to the green area in the picture.  Disclaimer: I am basing this off of measurements I made 2 years ago, it's possible that BD changed their figures since then.

The worst thing you could do would be to mix manufacturers suggested usable ranges with 10%/60% (not apples to apples).

EDIT : After re-measuring my small collection of C4s (#2, #3, #5) my measurements were within 1mm of BDs specs, so it appears that either BD updated the specs, or I was hallucinating.

I just had another idea.  Just an idea, but...  Maybe instead of having the "Expansion" dropdown, and picking between "min/max" or "usable", you could just show both ranges at the same time by showing sub-ranges in each bar in the plot... e.g...
_______________________________
10     20     30     40

   |=|---------- |===|  BD C4 #0.75

            |=|------------|====|  BD C4 #1

_______________________________

This allows you to get rid of the expansion drop down, but more importantly, it lets users visually see the difference between min/max, and usable ranges of each cam.  

cyclestupor wrote:

Personally, I don't think usable range is really that important for the purpose of comparison.  The most important thing for me whenever I am looking at any kind of comparison chart (for any products) is that I am comparing apples to apples.  Showing us the min/max ranges accomplishes that.  I'll decide what the usable range is when I place the cam.

The apples to apples idea doesn't really fly, because when you're comparing cams of different sizes, you want them to be different (but overlapping).

People are saying on this thread that in practice there's a gap between the ranges of the #2 and #3 X4 cams. Given the specs, if I didn't know better, I might have decided to purchase two sets of X4s, thinking that they would cover this entire size range, because the min/max ranges indicate that there is no gap. Given there's a gap, it makes more sense to purchase a set of X4s and a set of another cam that covers the gaps in the X4s range. Or you could purchase two sets of Metolius cams and not have gaps.

When I see a cam charts showing usable range instead of min/max range, then I toss it out the window, because "usable range" is so ambiguous.  Is it manufacturers suggested range?  Do each of the manufacturers have the same Ideas about what a tipped out cam looks like?  Is it just 10%/60%?

It's not ambiguous at all. It's the expansion where the cam has been tested and shown to perform at its rated strength. I personally don't have the tools to measure this, but cam manufacturers do.

For example, most people think that BD only provides min/max range specs for their cams.  However this is not exactly true.  If you look at the manual you will see this...

Which suggests that a BD is happy if you place your C4 almost completely tipped out.  

That picture is completely useless for comparing usable ranges from BD to other cam manufacturers.

Now if you measure a C4 and compare it to BD's specs, you will see, the actual measured max range is slightly greater than the reported one.  I suspect that the numbers that BD reports actually correspond to the green area in the picture.  Disclaimer: I am basing this off of measurements I made 2 years ago, it's possible that BD changed their figures since then.

If that's the case, BD could be much clearer that this is the max usable range of their cams.

I'd be interested to see the numbers you collected. Were they on new cams?

The worst thing you could do would be to mix manufacturers suggested usable ranges with 10%/60% (not apples to apples).

I agree that comparing manufacturer usable ranges with a guess at a usable range isn't ideal, but it's the best we can do given many manufacturers don't provide usable range stats. It's certainly better than comparing min/max stats, which are fairly useless for indicating where a cam can be used.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

The apples to apples idea doesn't really fly, because when you're comparing cams of different sizes, you want them to be different (but overlapping).

I agree about being able to visualize overlap, but apples to apples comparison is important.

People are saying on this thread that in practice there's a gap between the ranges of the #2 and #3 X4 cams. Given the specs, if I didn't know better, I might have decided to purchase two sets of X4s, thinking that they would cover this entire size range, because the min/max ranges indicate that there is no gap. Given there's a gap, it makes more sense to purchase a set of X4s and a set of another cam that covers the gaps in the X4s range. Or you could purchase two sets of Metolius cams and not have gaps.

It's not ambiguous at all. It's the expansion where the cam has been tested and shown to perform at its rated strength. I personally don't have the tools to measure this, but cam manufacturers do.

The ambiguity comes in that different cam manufacturers have different ideas about what "usable" range means.  BD might think that usable range means the range at which it will perform at it's rated strength.  While Metolius calls "usable" range, the ranges they believe to be safe in real life cracks (hence the range guide dimples on master cams).

That picture is completely useless for comparing usable ranges from BD to other cam manufacturers.

If that's the case, BD could be much clearer that this is the max usable range of their cams.

Yes, exactly.  And the actual max range of the C4 in the camparison chart should probably be physically measured to be completely fair.  But what a PITA.

I'd be interested to see the numbers you collected. Were they on new cams?

I'll see if i can find those numbers after work.  I measured my own very lightly used cams.  Just #2 and #3.  I have since bought a #5.  I'll measure It when I get a chance.

I agree that comparing manufacturer usable ranges with a guess at a usable range isn't ideal, but it's the best we can do given many manufacturers don't provide usable range stats. It's certainly better than comparing min/max stats, which are fairly useless for indicating where a cam can be used.

I see your point, but I guess my preference is just to assume 10%/60% across the board.  This is still apples to apples and lets me see the overlap/gaps well enough.

cyclestupor wrote:

I just had another idea.  Just an idea, but...  Maybe instead of having the "Expansion" dropdown, and picking between "min/max" or "usable", you could just show both ranges at the same time by showing sub-ranges in each bar in the plot... e.g...
_______________________________
10     20     30     40

   |=|---------- |===|  BD C4 #0.75

            |=|------------|====|  BD C4 #1

_______________________________

This allows you to get rid of the expansion drop down, but more importantly, it lets users visually see the difference between min/max, and usable ranges of each cam.  

I love this idea!

In this I can clearly see what size ranges are covered.

EDIT: There's a gap here between the DMM Dragons 5 and 6. In practice that doesn't exist--I think larger cams can handle being tipped out a little better than small cams. I guess this points back to what we were talking about where 10%-60% is just a guess.

I just remembered another thing that complicates the definition of "usable".  BD C4 and X4 from 0.4 to 0.75 use the same geometry, but X4 are more difficult to extract from tight placements due to stiffer springs..  Worse, I've read the degree of this varies between different batches of X4.

So maybe the problem of defining "usable range" is just too hard, and the best option here is cyclestupor's idea with colors.

I do wish there was an organized repository of user opinions about gaps between sizes and what to fill them with, but maybe that's a job for a different website.

Serge Smirnov wrote:

On the .4-.75 x4 there is sometimes excess glue/epoxy where the soft trigger cord enters the lobe. This can put an odd angle in the cord near full retraction and keep it from fully retracting to the end of it's range. Very careful work with a razor removed it on my .4 and made it easier to clean. 

Alien 1/3 size

Metolius 0 size

Black Diamond .1 size

huh? There are better ways to make your products distinct!

cyclestupor wrote:

When I see a cam charts showing usable range instead of min/max range, then I toss it out the window, because "usable range" is so ambiguous.  Is it manufacturers suggested range?  Do each of the manufacturers have the same Ideas about what a tipped out cam looks like?  Is it just 10%/60%?

Agreed.  Not only that, but the percentage rules are probably (no, definitely) not the same for all sizes of cams in all placements.  60% might be as far as you want to go on a small cam in uneven rock or rock that is crumbly on the surface, whereas 80% or more might be reasonable on a perfect granite splitter with a big cam.  Comparing overall range is really the only sensible way to do this.

David Kerkeslager wrote:It's not ambiguous at all. It's the expansion where the cam has been tested and shown to perform at its rated strength. I personally don't have the tools to measure this, but cam manufacturers do.

Are you sure about that?  The Metolius numbers definitely do not match the UIAA testing requirements.  It's possible that Metolius has specifically tesed their cams at these sizes, and that they work are these sizes and don't work outside of them, but I think that is highly unlikely.  For example, in a lab environment, there is no reason to expect that a nearly tipped out cam (say, 95%) won't pass a load test; it almost definitely will.  We don't place cams fully tipped out for other more practical reasons (walking, rock fracture, etc.).  I think it's very unlikely that the Metolius (or other) "usable range" sizes correspond specifically with test data, and far more likely that it is subjective guidance about where they think the cams should be used.

FYI, the UIAA requires testing at 25% and 75% of the total range for larger cams, and only requires testing at the midpoint for small cams (<5mm range).  I would be very cautious about assuming that load testing correlates with usable range in real rock.

This is a great tool, thank you. But I noticed their are no BD Ultra light C4 cams - which I think have mostly the same ranges as the regular C4 but different weights