Black diamond micro camalots: Super strong or not?

I've got my hands on a bunch of BD micro cams.

Even the smallest (0.34-0.54") claims a strength of 7KN. Much higher than the comparable c3 000 (4KN) and x4 .1 (5KN). Are there caveats to this 7KN number (assuming the slings are new)?

Solid stem vs wire stem?  The biggest caveat is that with these tin cams, the magin for error in placement is tiny, so the lab value at which point the cam fails may be very different from the real world value where the placement fails.

Wolf L wrote: I've got my hands on a bunch of BD micro cams.

Even the smallest (0.34-0.54") claims a strength of 7KN. Much higher than the comparable c3 000 (4KN) and x4 .1 (5KN). Are there caveats to this 7KN number (assuming the slings are new)?

Comparable to C3 00 6kn 

Matt Himmelstein wrote: Solid stem vs wire stem?  The biggest caveat is that with these tin cams, the magin for error in placement is tiny, so the lab value at which point the cam fails may be very different from the real world value where the placement fails.

These are single, cable (i.e. flexible) stemmed. There's a plack plastic cover over the cable.  BD never made a truly rigid stem camming unit.

Matt Himmelstein wrote: Solid stem vs wire stem?  The biggest caveat is that with these tin cams, the magin for error in placement is tiny, so the lab value at which point the cam fails may be very different from the real world value where the placement fails.

The stem is wire covered with plastics not solid metal.

rocknice2 wrote:

Comparable to C3 00 6kn 

Right it's size is closer to the 00 c3

Not a caveat to the number per se, but the head widths of the BD microcams make the #1 and #2 less useful than you might think.   The X4s are more versatile.   I still rack my #3, though.

More important, good luck finding placements for them. You will for sure. But, cracks that thin don’t accept wide head widths that often.

If you look at BD's actual test data you get different numbers, they rate there ULs lower than there normal C4s when they can hold like 3Kns more.

I bought most of a full set of these when they first came out. 1989?  Second generation Camalots.  The stems are very durable, the triggering mechanism is a bit awkward. They were the smallest serviceable 4-cam micros at the time and seemed plenty solid.  The red is still one of the tiniest cams made, but the axle is very long for the width.  I didn't use the smallest much because I was really used to Metolius 3-cams, which I used all the time up to red size and slotted into parallel cracks, all kinds of pods, pockety cracks, etc. better than anything.  The yellow and blue were killer.
Newer units are lighter and more versatile, but you scored some good gear.  Re-sling them!  May as well make the re-stitched sling an inch longer too, IMO.  Those 3 in the photo are at least 20 years old.
If you got any of the bigger ones, red and up, the axle area makes them quite a bit heavier.  This was the only C4 series to have the sling attachment so the biner lies flat against the rock, which I prefer.

Cabot Steward wrote: If you look at BD's actual test data you get different numbers, they rate there ULs lower than there normal C4s when they can hold like 3Kns more.

If they run 10 test and 5 hold 12 KN and 5 hold 9 KN they aren't going to put it holds 12 KN on the package. Generally whatever you see listed on the package is less than what it will really hold.

I don't think you need to resling them. Those slings look to be in good shape, nylon degrades very slowly, and you only need them to have a strength of 7kN to not be the weakest link. 

The real issue is that most places where you are wanting to place a .1 or .2 sized cam you don't have the luxury of fiddling around. And, unfortunately, it's going to take some fiddling to place tiny cams that are that wide. There's a reason all the new microcams are so much narrower. 

Gunkiemike wrote:

These are single, cable (i.e. flexible) stemmed. There's a plack plastic cover over the cable.  BD never made a truly rigid stem camming unit.

My bad, yes I know they somewhat flexible and wire.  I should have just made the distinction about them being a narrower gauge wire and semi-rigid.

Mack Johnson wrote: I bought most of a full set of these when they first came out. 1989? 

Think it was more like 2000 when those came out, maybe even a bit later?

Nice cams for thin parallel cracks - but most small thin cracks tend to be shallow (especially pin scars) so they don't fit in a lot of spots that other cams fit.

The strength is not the most important factor because the cam will pull before it fails in nearly all cases. In fact, I dont think I have ever heard of a non-defective cam's maincable or axle failing outright from excessive loading on a lead fall. Not once, ever. Not even a story of it happening. Anyone have a photo to prove me wrong?

Greg Barnes wrote:

Think it was more like 2000 when those came out, maybe even a bit later?

Nice cams for thin parallel cracks - but most small thin cracks tend to be shallow (especially pin scars) so they don't fit in a lot of spots that other cams fit.

Yeah, he is about 10+ years off on that. I still prefer narrow heads on my small cams for the same reasons.

Matt Himmelstein wrote: Solid stem vs wire stem?  The biggest caveat is that with these tin cams, the magin for error in placement is tiny, so the lab value at which point the cam fails may be very different from the real world value where the placement fails.

"Lab value", I like that. I've whipped good on a 000 C3. Pucker up buttercup.

Tradiban wrote:

"Lab value", I like that. I've whipped good on a 000 C3. Pucker up buttercup.

Sure, but you were whipping in a lab.