New DMM Dragonfly cams look like Aliens...

michalm wrote: Both. The three smallest Dragonflies are smaller than the Black totem. Dragonflies will also fit in shallower placements than Totems due to the depth of the lobes on Totem cams when retracted. Either double up, or simply supplement Totem cams with Dragonflies in the smaller sizes.
Black Totem seems to be approximately Red C3/blue mastercam size. I am sure you will be glad to have smaller cams than that, especially with such a narrow head width..

The US distributor estimates April/May for retail Dragonfly orders.

Thanks man

michalm wrote:Let's clear some things up.

The 6000 series aluminum alloy on the Dragonflies is soft compared to the 7000 series alloy used on Mastercams, but harder than the 6000 series alloy used on Aliens.

I looked it up and it actually looks like 6082 is softer than 6061.

Briggs Lazalde wrote:

Wait harder metal means more outward force?

No. Smaller camming angle means more outward force.

Edit: Over my limit on this thread.

Another factor is lobe width. If you distribute the force over a wider area you're less likely to pull out in soft rock. Doesn't help for behind a flake type placements though, as net force is still equal regardless of lobe size. I think the new WC Friends have wider lobes than the C4s, yeah? Are DMM similar?

I'm not sure where I saw this originally, but a quick searched showed some results for T6: 6061-T6 Vickers hardness 107, 6082-T6 Vickers hardness 95.

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=fad29be6e64d4e95a241690f1f6e1eb7
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=b8d536e0b9b54bd7b69e4124d8f1d20a

Low camming angles have less range and exert greater outward force. This is what metolius marketed. Less range but greater holding power.

CCH aliens had the highest cam angle on the market I've ever heard of. At 15-16, they shouldn't have worked but did, and remarkably well.

I believe there are two reasons for this. First and foremost, the lobes are super soft. They were supposed to be 6061 but independent testing that I trust never yielded hardness close to that. The second is the high cam angle kept the rock from breaking off on bad placements.

It's a magical combo that was pretty much on accident. No company with decent R&D, manufacturing standards, and lawyers could consistently reproduce this.

I really like the WC/DMM angle, I never cared for the wonky action of the Zero though. This looks hopeful.

Edited to add. CCH purchased long rods of cam shaped material. Lobes were cut off and holes drilled. They did not use CNC at all. There are first hand reports of the finished lobes being heated to a certain unspecified temp. If they did this, it would have definitely softened the 6061 a lot. How much would depend on temp and cooling.

Ryan Pfleger wrote:

I looked it up and it actually looks like 6082 is softer than 6061.

I haven't found a source to support that with untempered aluminum so far. What is yours?

It seems that 6082 is stronger than 6061. This is perhaps related to the higher manganese content causing the grain structure to be more homogeneous. In any case, it should have fairly similar properties with regard to deformation.

Anyway, this looks like a well-engineered, narrow-head width, flexible, four-lobe cam that might replace aliens and C3s on my rack. I imagine the trigger action will be also be quite smooth per typical DMM quality. It will be somewhat more confidence inspiring to have a cam more flexible than the 000 C3 for shallow, horizontal placements.

Hopefully it will increase the supply of C3s on the used market then!

In the context of cam lobe sticky-ness, stiffness (Young's modulus) is probably a more relevant number than hardness.

6061 vs 6081 = 68.9 vs 70.0 GPa

Jon Rhoderick wrote: Hopefully it will increase the supply of C3s on the used market then!

I just bought the Yellow C3 at my climbing gym, looks like it has been in the back room for a while. Got it for $50, with my member discount. Looking for the red.

My layman's interpretation is that stiffness would be how much the metal might deform and still be able to spring back into shape, while hardness would be permanent deformation, a la a crystal biting into the lobe and leaving a permanent indentation there. This is not an area of expertise (or even mediocrity!) for me though. Do I have that right? 

Ryan Pfleger wrote: My layman's interpretation is that stiffness would be how much the metal might deform and still be able to spring back into shape, while hardness would be permanent deformation, a la a crystal biting into the lobe and leaving a permanent indentation there. This is not an area of expertise (or even mediocrity!) for me though. Do I have that right? 

Stiffness is a property of a section (shape fashioned from a material) rather than the material itself. Hardness is actually a pretty complicated property based on several other properties of the material. 

But you can measure stiffness of a material, irrespective of shape, in the form of Young's modulus, right? I guess it is more elasticity, than stiffness? Anyway, no need to respond. There are plenty of good internet resources on the subject.

I’ll respond anyway since you’re pretty close. Young’s modulus is a relationship between stress (force/area) and strain (change in length/original length) but only applies in the elastic range of a material - stress levels which will cause the material to deform, but it will return to its original shape when unloaded. The sort of permanent deformation you are interested in, such as cam lobes with permanent damage after a fall, are plastic deformations which occur when the material is subjected to a stress which exceeds its yield stress.

Do some googling and find a set of PowerPoint slides from a Mechanics of Materials course, you can learn the basics in an hour or two. 

Noah Yetter wrote: The ranges match Metolius sizing almost exactly...
Metolius orange (18.5 - 26.5 mm) = DMM purple (19 - 28.3mm)
Metolius yellow (15.5 - 22.5 mm) = DMM grey (15.1 - 22.5mm)
Metolius blue (12.5 - 18.0 mm) = DMM blue (12.1 - 17.9mm)
Metolius purple (10.0 - 15.0 mm) = DMM gold (10.2 - 15.2mm, 1kN stronger)
Metolius grey (8.5 - 12.0 mm) = DMM red (8.7 - 12.9mm, 1kN stronger)
(no Metolius equivalent to DMM green)

The colors match X4s but those have quite a bit more range, as do C4s and Dragons in the overlapping sizes.

I'm sure these will be very nice but I feel like they missed the boat a little by sticking with 13.75 degrees in a single-axle design. That said, I expect they'll be well made (unlike Fixe Aliens) and you'll actually be able to buy them (unlike Totem Basics). And anyone who avoids the Metolius ULMC because "no thumb loop" should love these.

Yea “no thumb loop” is a pretty big deal. 

Am I the only one that absolutely loves the 0.1-0.4 (red, yellow, blue and grey) x4's?
I've used every cam from the old alien to the new, totems and totem basic, C3's, mastercam, and zeros extensively too.
Totem (non-basic) black, blue, and yellow are my 2nd choice for super-funky placements.
Mastercam 00, 000  and lowballs for anything smaller.

I have been using those X4 sizes for years now, with no complaints. Heads could be a bit narrower, otherwise they're great. Very durable, seemingly more so than other small cams.

Briggs thinks so too. I know this because we're twins. 

pretty soon the us will be like china, all companies ripping off each others design and cloning them. right now they do that, but change something to make it "different"......ahhhhh, they are just showing their appreciation for each others designs.....flattery....

I'll never leave my X4s. That 0.3 (blue) has a special place on my rack.

Just got a green one in. Next to 000 C3

Oh that's tiny

Jason Arrow wrote: Just got a green one in. Next to 000 C3

How do they compare in terms of stiffness? 

I'm assuming the C3 wins in a landslide, but are we dealing with the X4's flaccid sibling or a stiffy you can shove in a crack when you have a bad case of Elvis Leg?