NEW Black diamond Z4

Psyched that they kept the aid freaks in the loop. I think that the smallest offsets will be an awesome supplement to yer big rack of scrotum cams.
Hope they release a #0/.1 offset - that would actually be something new and unique.

Dan Africk wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I've always understood double axle to be safer, since this design makes it impossible for the lobes to capsize (for lack of a better term) if the piece is undercammed and tipped out. Hence why all double-axle BD cams are rated for the mythical 'umbrella mode'. As far as I know the only reason single axles are used on the smallest sizes is that's necessary to make the head unit small enough.

What area are you referring to as having an 'extremely small thickness of metal'?

(btw I think in the quote above you may have meant 'overcammed' not under. Otherwise I'm even more confused- everyone I knows uses undercammed to refer to loos placements and overcammed to be very tight placements). 

The link to that prior thread discusses what I'm talking about. While that particular instance may have been a questionable placement I had the same thing happen to a .4 from a larger fall at squamish, it wouldn't fully retract and my lobe was pressing hard into the axle due to deformation. 

Now going way off the wheels on a tangent. I'm just going to go back to saying "tight" or "tipped out" because coming from the world building racing engines (dealing with camshafts) the way climbers seem to have interpreted "camming action" so strangely and no one is going to bother reading this :) 

A "cam" is "a projection on a rotating part in machinery". When we fully retract climbing cam lobes that's our base, the smallest amount of expansion (or tightest crack they could fit). As you release the trigger that lobes expand, the definition of camming action. So why on earth would we call fully expanding something "under" camming and fully compressing it "over" when by definition a cam is the projection? I can only assume it's because we all have our cams fully expanded before placing them, but that's just ass backwards. 

Jim Jam wrote: Nice fucking try. I refuse to beileve these will place anywhere near as well as C3 in thin seams that are encountered on hard basalt climbing and thin shallow pockets in granite.

Even BD's athletes still prefer C3, look at the cover of alpinist 66, or any video with thin, shallow cracks. 

Were Z4's, even in a prototype form, available 2 1/2 years ago, when this photo was taken? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is strange evidence.

Nick Drake wrote: Still dual axle in the .4 size. Thin lobe. Dumb idea. 

How many broken .4 C4's are out there from lobes breaking or deforming? Cause I think I've seen or heard of a total of 0. I'd be willing to bet that BD has a pretty damn good idea on how their lobes are loaded and how strong they are. 

But man I still want some more C3's. The yellow, red, and green for granite....
 

Forthright wrote:

How many broken .4 C4's are out there from lobes breaking or deforming? Cause I think I've seen or heard of a total of 0. I'd be willing to bet that BD has a pretty damn good idea on how their lobes are loaded and how strong they are. 

But man I still want some more C3's. The yellow, red, and green for granite....
 

Well I'm n1 and no my .4 x4 didn't break, yer not gonna die. Mine just couldn't fully retract it again and I don't like my cams to be disposable after one 25 footer. YMMV, I mean clearly a .3 c4 is fine in the right place if you watch the whips Stanhope took in the bugs and most of the internet aren't taking larger falls on gear anyway. 

True blue and black totems when the well of yellow/red dry up, I haven't found a place I used the bigger C3s that the totems aren't bomber. I'm trying to stockpile green, purple and gray though, nothing else like em. 

Forthright wrote:

How many broken .4 C4's are out there from lobes breaking or deforming? Cause I think I've seen or heard of a total of 0. I'd be willing to bet that BD has a pretty damn good idea on how their lobes are loaded and how strong they are. 

But man I still want some more C3's. The yellow, red, and green for granite....
 

Have you (or anyone) seen ranges for the Z's yet? I've used the C3's from friends and really liked them, and have been holding off on buying small cams in hopes that BD comes out with something similar. I wasn't wild about the X4s, but these look promising. Is it really the width of the head that draws people to the C3's?

Chris Johnson wrote:

Have you (or anyone) seen ranges for the Z's yet? I've used the C3's from friends and really liked them, and have been holding off on buying small cams in hopes that BD comes out with something similar. I wasn't wild about the X4s, but these look promising. Is it really the width of the head that draws people to the C3's?

Also the ability to desperately stab those stiff fuckers into cracks without having to fiddle with the trigger.  Adjusting if possible once in there.

Luc-514 wrote:

Also the ability to desperately stab those stiff fuckers into cracks without having to fiddle with the trigger.  Adjusting if possible once in there.

Yep,  this.   Sure you had to extend them because of the stiff stem but the ability to make surgical placements is awesome.

5.6 climber chiming in
Seems the only way these will fill the c3 hole is if the narrower side of the lobes are as narrow as the single lobe on the equivalent c3 which kinda graduates in width if I recall correctly. In my limited experience, that graduation of the single lobe really makes them go in nicely to "special spots" for lack of a better term. If they can be consistent with that, then they should be a good product. I'd really like to see the cut sheets on different sizes. 

greggrylls wrote: https://gearjunkie.com/black-diamond-z4-camalot

Another article

Seems like sandblasted/raw lobes are the new thing.   Glad I don’t have to prescuff my gear out on the driveway anymore. 

Im glad im not the only one that does this lol

Forthright wrote:

How many broken .4 C4's are out there from lobes breaking or deforming? Cause I think I've seen or heard of a total of 0. I'd be willing to bet that BD has a pretty damn good idea on how their lobes are loaded and how strong they are. 

But man I still want some more C3's. The yellow, red, and green for granite....
 

Do people really want the #1 and #2 C3s still? Those are the only ones you can find in stock, online, with ~5mins of googling. 

 
https://shop.epictv.com/en/protection/black-diamond/camalot-c3?sku=BD15CLI_PROCAMC3_2 
https://www.gearcoop.com/products/black-diamond-camalot-c3-cams 
https://thechossshop.com/products/black-diamond-climbing-camalot-c3-slcd-cam-active-trad?variant=6957950074944 (act quick 1 left on sale - tip, add cut to length webbing to hit free shipping)
https://www.dicksclimbing.com/products/black-diamond-camalot-c3?variant=335695893 

Unable to find anything smaller in stock. Just setup an ebay alert, though, and eventually you might get lucky.  
 

Long Ranger wrote:

Were Z4's, even in a prototype form, available 2 1/2 years ago, when this photo was taken? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is strange evidence.

Very valid point. I'd bet were that photo taken today, it'd still be a c3 in Lonnie's hand

Headwidth aside. An important thing with the C3 that the Z4 or any other cams do not have is an extremely small profile behind the lobes (trigger wire, wirekeeper, sheath) this allows you to sneak them in to very tricky placements. Something that seems to have been overlooked by BD.

I will be pleasantly surprised if the holding strength of the Z4 is the same or better than C3's. Something BD has not been able to replicate with the X4

Jim Jam wrote:
I will be pleasantly surprised if the holding strength of the Z4 is the same or better than C3's. Something BD has not been able to replicate with the X4

Recently talked to a engineer at BD while they were pull testing cams with manufacturing defects for the SLCA fundraising event.  I asked what numbers they are seeing on the .1 X4s and he said 75 percent of them are failing around 2,000 lbs or approximately 9 KN.  While I knew the rating is 3 sigma blah blah I didn't realize that much of their samples are testing that high.

I will say climbing above a C3 does give me the warm fuzzies, number on the tag aside they just seem strong!

Edit: not implying X4's are stronger than C3s I wonder what the purples and greens were failing at?

Chris Johnson wrote:

 Is it really the width of the head that draws people to the C3's?

Yup, it's almost like the were proportioned off of the pins that were the same size making the pin scars (or pin scar like features) that the C3's are so good in. 

Forthright wrote:

How many broken .4 C4's are out there from lobes breaking or deforming? Cause I think I've seen or heard of a total of 0. 

FWIW, my .4 X4 had a lobe bend after a 25 ft whipper. I'm grateful it caught the fall and saved my butt, but it would be nice if it were still usable. Prior to that incident I had heard a few stories about other X4's becoming deformed after larger falls, but didn't really think much about it until it happened to me. Hopefully these new cams are a little more sturdy.

Tradiban wrote:

Lol, ya BD et al doesn't do it for the money, they do it because they care!

im not saying its purely altruistic, what I mean is without them (gear companies), we would still be truly risking our lives every time we tie in.

Its like your favorite microbrew coming out with a new IPA.  Is it original?  Hell no. Is it good and worth a pint?  Probably.  Might it become your favorite new session brew? Maybe.

are you forced to buy it? NO.  So how is BD reaching into your pockets? Are you subscribed to buy all new products on the market??

got my grubby hands on some Z4's yesterday.  (Benefits to living in SLC with BD employees/testers out using them)  

Variable stiffness feature is very cool and works well.  Makes my x4's feel like noodles in comparison.  Can't comment on head width too much as I didn't have my C3s on my rack though they did seem a hair wider eyeballing them.  (Still very narrow tho)   EDIT:  SAME WIDTH THANKS KP!
 
Good job BD, they seem quality at first glance.

greggrylls wrote: got my grubby hands on some Z4's yesterday.  (Benefits to living in SLC with BD employees/testers out using them)  

Variable stiffness feature is very cool and works well.  Makes my x4's feel like noodles in comparison.  Can't comment on head width too much as I didn't have my C3s on my rack though they did seem a hair wider eyeballing them.  (Still very narrow tho)  
 
Good job BD, they seem quality at first glance.  

Nice!  Did they look noticeably narrower than the X4s in the smaller sizes?

My buddy was leading so I didn't have anything on me to actually compare to.  

I'd say narrower than X4s for sure, maybe not as narrow as C3s, but hard to say. Don't want to start throwing around too much info since I was just eyeballing them.  

Expecting more videos and demos from BD and reviewers soon with OR happening.  Should get more concrete specs then I would expect.

greggrylls wrote: My buddy was leading so I didn't have anything on me to actually compare to.  

I'd say narrower than X4s for sure, maybe not as narrow as C3s, but hard to say. Don't want to start throwing around too much info since I was just eyeballing them.  

Expecting more videos and demos from BD and reviewers soon with OR happening.  Should get more concrete specs then I would expect.

Fair enough but I will take your eyeball assessment over nothing since I am a long way from SLC.  Beers on me for the cam nerd that smuggles their C3s into OR and reports back on the side by side.