Totems for Beginning Trad Rack

The modern rack is 90% triples in the totems and 10% sexual ambiguity.

B DeMers wrote:
I'm a newbie in trad with a year under my belt.

Aid climbing in Yosemite (never done it) might be 10 out of 10 times.

If you climb in, say Utah, it'd be 49 out of 50+ times.

They are nice, but 1.5x as expensive. Only get them when you need them. Which may be now, but most likely wont be until you're leading up any trad.

Fixed that for you.  

Andy Novak wrote:

Fixed that for you.  

I've climbed (lead and followed) and watched more trad in Utah then anywhere else. Never seen a totem placed, barley seen them on racks.

Used .3 C4 ~$30
Used blue totem ~$75

(Prices of what I've seen on MP)

fixe aliens and BD ultralights

If we’re talking about a starter rack though, youve picked the right time to buy into C4s as you can still get the last models for $38 a piece brand new.

Totems are sweet, but I mean.. $38 vs $89 is pretty crazy.

If money is no issue, sure get the totems. The flexible stem makes them almost impervious to walking, the lobe geometry makes it hard to get them stuck, and the head width is unbeatable. Those are the main advantages to them, although there are others. If money wasn't a factor, my ideal rack would be totems from black to red and then C4s/Dragons/Friends in the #2 through #4 sizes. This rack will serve you well.

If money is a factor, I would get C4s/Dragons/Friends from .5 size to #4 size and UL Mastercams in orange, yellow, blue. Once you get more experience, maybe add in a green C3. If you can find cheap, used C4s, Dragons, or the new friends (double axle friends, not the older single axle friends) then that's you're best bet because lightly used is way better value than buying them brand new. 

Nolan Huther wrote:

That's theory that they'll exhibit a higher outward force, not evidence that they'll perform better than other cams. Those are two different claims and to support the latter, you have to prove that all other cams will fail in an identical placement. 

Given the cam physics, the higher outward force translates to being able to withstand higher loads and so, in theory, perform better than other cams.  We don't have, and almost certainly never will have, statistically valid comparison tests, so the theory is all we'll ever have to go on, and it predicts better performance.

Ancecdotally, I've heard a few people describe placing another brand of cam, bounce-testing it and getting a failure, and then successfully replacing it with a Totem.  But such anecdotes fall far short of that kind of unattainable "proof" you describe.

Nolan Huther wrote:

That's theory that they'll exhibit a higher outward force, not evidence that they'll perform better than other cams. Those are two different claims and to support the latter, you have to prove that all other cams will fail in an identical placement. This is exactly what don'tchuffonme was saying.

I quoted what don'tchuffonme said, and he specifically used the phrases "better holding power" and "hold in flaring placements" and I think my previous post made it clear that was the part of the post I was responding to.

There is a direct relationship between these properties and higher outward force (in the case of the latter, specifically higher outward force in flaring placements). Higher outward force results in higher holding power. Higher outward force with relation to flare angle in cracks results in holding in more flaring placements.

Higher outward force means better odds of holding unless the higher force also results in rock failure. For soft rock, you may be better off with a cam with lower outward force such as an alien (although this effect may or may not be offset by decreased surface area due to the skinny lobes on aliens). 

eli poss wrote: Higher outward force means better odds of holding unless the higher force also results in rock failure. For soft rock, you may be better off with a cam with lower outward force such as an alien (although this effect may or may not be offset by decreased surface area due to the skinny lobes on aliens). 

True enough, although no one has any practical idea what it would mean to be too soft for a Totem but ok for an Alien.   The surface area issue is a separate and quite confounding issue, since basic cam theory is based on a simple friction model in which the normal force is determinative and surface area has no effect.  When, for example, Metolius comes up with Fat Cams, there is a bit of engineering double-think going on.

rgold wrote:

True enough, although no one has any practical idea what it would mean to be too soft for a Totem but ok for an Alien.   The surface area issue is a separate and quite confounding issue, since basic cam theory is based on a simple friction model in which the normal force is determinative and surface area has no effect.  When, for example, Metolius comes up with Fat Cams, there is a bit of engineering double-think going on.

I think what eli means is that the larger surface area should decrease chance of rock failure, not that the larger surface area should increase friction.

David K wrote:

I think what eli means is that the larger surface area should decrease chance of rock failure, not that the larger surface area should increase friction.

But...more contact, more friction, assuming smooth surfaces? That's how...friction works assuming the same material on either surfaces.

If that's not how friction works, I have absolutely no idea how I climb slabs or any idea how smearing works.

David K wrote:

I think what eli means is that the larger surface area should decrease chance of rock failure, not that the larger surface area should increase friction.

Good point.

gumbie gene wrote:

But...more contact, more friction, assuming smooth surfaces? That's how...friction works assuming the same material on either surfaces.

If that's not how friction works, I have absolutely no idea how I climb slabs or any idea how smearing works.

When the two surfaces are smooth and rigid, more surface contact does not actually mean more friction. You can look up coefficient of friction if you want to read about the physics behind this. Note that climbing shoe rubber is not rigid-it deforms to the rock when pressed against it, so more rubber contacting the rock can mean more friction for that reason. Aluminum cam lobes are rigid however.

David K wrote:

I think what eli means is that the larger surface area should decrease chance of rock failure, not that the larger surface area should increase friction.

yes that's what I meant. Larger surface area means lower pressure and reduced likelihood of breaking or pulverizing the rock

rgold wrote:

Given the cam physics, the higher outward force translates to being able to withstand higher loads and so, in theory, perform better than other cams.  We don't have, and almost certainly never will have, statistically valid comparison tests, so the theory is all we'll ever have to go on, and it predicts better performance.

Ancecdotally, I've heard a few people describe placing another brand of cam, bounce-testing it and getting a failure, and then successfully replacing it with a Totem.  But such anecdotes fall far short of that kind of unattainable "proof" you describe.

No.  Higher outward force means only more force pressing the cam lobe against the rock. Withstanding high loads requires the cam and rock (as well as the rest of the system) not break.  Friction at the cam lobe is only one part of the system. 

Rgold - point taken. My point is more that people consider totems to be a superior cam, and while I do think they're great, their benefits are not appreciable to me. I'd use them exactly the same as any other cam purely because, unless I delve into big wall aid climbing or high end trad headpointing, I won't be placing them in less than a standard ideal placements. I subjectively think they're undisputably a great cam, but I never saw a point where I could place one where there wasn't an opportunity to place a C3 or TCU or Mastercam which would work in the same or an adjacent placements. Some truly extreme trad climbs have been done before totems, and while totems will certainly be excellent cams in the same circumstances, they are only substitutes and the other cam is not irrelevant. People proclaiming that they're the next generation of cams may be right, but TCUs are still one of the most popular cams in my area and the design is basically over 20 years old, so I don't think other cams are irrelevant to the point that I'd tell a beginning trad climber to spend $90 on a cam. In the end, I think their expense is not worth benefits that are not appreciable to my style of climbing, and to circle back to the OP, I especially don't think that the benefits will be appreciable in beginner/moderate trad. YMMV

This discussion would be a lot more fun over beer and pizza.

Live Perched wrote:

No.  Higher outward force means only more force pressing the cam lobe against the rock. Withstanding high loads requires the cam and rock (as well as the rest of the system) not break.  Friction at the cam lobe is only one part of the system. 

Of course, but the higher outward load is the only part of the situation you describe that is even remotely quantifiable.  And focusing on soft rock and crumbling placements misses the reason for higher holding power, which is for placements in slick rock where ordinary cams are inadequate.

Nolan Huther wrote:... I subjectively think they're undisputably a great cam, but I never saw a point where I could place one where there wasn't an opportunity to place a C3 or TCU or Mastercam which would work in the same or an adjacent placements. Some truly extreme trad climbs have been done before totems, and while totems will certainly be excellent cams in the same circumstances, they are only substitutes and the other cam is not irrelevant. People proclaiming that they're the next generation of cams may be right, but TCUs are still one of the most popular cams in my area and the design is basically over 20 years old, so I don't think other cams are irrelevant to the point that I'd tell a beginning trad climber to spend $90 on a cam. In the end, I think their expense is not worth benefits that are not appreciable to my style of climbing, and to circle back to the OP, I especially don't think that the benefits will be appreciable in beginner/moderate trad. YMMV

This is where my comments on rock type come into play.  Totem's superior holding power in slick placements isn't the main advantage; head width is, and if the placements in your area are irregular, you'll find Totems give you options you simply don't have with other cams.

I might add that the Totem cam shape makes the the least likely to get stuck in an overcammed position, which is another consideration for novices.

Nolan, I wasn't speaking of flares, I was speaking of configurations that won't take most other cams because their head width is too great.