Camp photon is junk

dave custer wrote:

Rarely; but not never.

When?

John V wrote:

Linking these two sentences causally results in a hypothesis that might be testable under controlled conditions. Mistaking this video for such testing is a misapplication of “backyard science” (despite the many appropriate disclaimers in the video). Ryan doesn’t make a big deal out of the Photon result because he understands this. 

My conclusion isn’t based on the solely on the video, the video just helps illustrate how the wire gate can slip off at loads below the MBS.

It would be great to see someone do some testing in 3-point loading and with out-of-plane loading, using a load frame, but there are certain tests that can easily be done by anyone at home.

I will try to illustrate a test that anyone can do at home.  If you look at the worn Petzl Spirit carabiner, in the picture below, you can see where the anodization on the gate has been worn away by contact against rock. As you can see from all the wear, it not uncommon to have some contact force between the rock and the gate.  

It is relatively easy to simulate this contact pressure of rock against the gate, just using your hands. I have posted contrasting videos of simulated gate contact with rock for two different carabiners. It is easy to see how a small amount of force against the gate will keep the Photon gate from being seated securely in the shallow notch, when the carabiner is loaded, during a fall.

Anyone can do this at home to compare and contrast the relative gate security of their carabiners, in the event that there is contact between the gate and rock.  

Karl Henize wrote:

My conclusion isn’t based on the solely on the video, the video just helps illustrate how the wire gate can slip off.  

It would be great to see someone do some testing in 3-point loading and with out-of-plane loading, using a load frame, but there are certain tests that can easily be done by anyone at home.

I will try to illustrate a test that anyone can do at home.  If you look at the worn Petzl Spirit carabiner, in the picture below, you can see where the anodization on the gate has been worn away by contact pressure against rock. As you can see from all the wear, it not uncommon to have some contact force between the rock and the gate.  

It is relatively easy to simulate this contact pressure of rock against the gate, just using your hands. I have posted contrasting videos of simulated gate contact with rock for two different carabiners. It is easy to see how a small amount of force against the gate will keep the Photon gate from being seated securely in the shallow notch, when the carabiner is loaded, during a fall.

Anyone can do this at home to compare and contrast the relative gate security of their carabiners, in the event that there is contact between the gate and rock.  

That is a valid point, however is not unique to the photon.....
I would say most all wire gate, notch style noses, suffer from this fallibility. We're talking 2ish millimeters of motion on even the deepest of notches on wire gates.

If this is a concern, the Ange S and L should be a top choice.

Theres a reason why DMM bumped their OG rating to 9+ KN

And why many manufacturers did so as well for their sport biners

The documentation on why was online last time I checked

Mr Rogers wrote:

That is a valid point, however is not unique to the photon.....
I would say most all wire gate, notch style noses, suffer from this fallibility. We're talking 2ish millimeters of motion on even the deepest of notches on wire gates.

If this is a concern, the Ange S and L should be a top choice.

It is not unique to the Photon, but even when compared against other similar notched designs (Camp Nano, DMM Phantom, Mammut Wall Light), I think you will find that there are more possible scenarios where the Photon gate will slip off the notch.  

Even with the nearly identical design of the Nano, the smaller size means that the moment arms are shorter, so more force is required to achieve the same rotational displacement.  

The Phantom and Wall Light appear to have deeper notches (a greater nose hooking concern), narrower notches, and more supporting material below the notch.  These carabiners are also smaller, and therefore have shorter moment arms.  

That being said, I think key lock and shrouded nose carabiner designs are worth the additional cost and weight over all of the carabiners mentioned above.  Of all the non-locking carabiners that I have used, the Petzl Ange carabiners seem to be the least likely to have accidental gate opening.  

I'm curious if this was the older Photon or the newer redesigned version, which is talked about on the camp website:

Redesigned interface between the gate and nose helps to protect the wire gate from damage and accidental opening" - camp usa

Ryan said it was brand new but, that does't necessarily mean it was the newer version. Mine says 01 18 2323 on them. There is an ID listed on camp's website of 2470; not sure it's stamped on the carabiner too or if it's just an inventory thing for the website or something.

Does anyone know how to tell the difference?

Might be cool if Ryan would be willing to break a few of each version to see how often this gate opening thing happens between the two, if at all.

If nothing else, it's nice to know what the "gate open breaking point" was (albeit unscientific) and this after a few previous pulls and that it was higher than the 9 MBS it was labeled with. Of course, it would be nice if the gates stayed closed the whole way through and for this thread to not exist too; especially since I have a rack full of Photons lol.

Last image is one of mine and you can see a bit of a curve on the inner part of the spine. The outer part of the spine seems flat, however. I can't help but wonder if that "pre-curve" aids in the futher curving of the carabiner when under heavy load and ultimately a premature gate opening.

Hard to tell for sure but, looking at this, I think it was indeed closed at the start of the test.

I’ve been a long time photon and nano 22 lover. But man…ya’ll are making me reevaluate my life.

Sometimes the gates don’t close fully on my photon alpine draws and i have to manually close them. 

Nathan Doyle wrote:

Last image is one of mine and you can see a bit of a curve on the inner part of the spine. The outer part of the spine seems flat, however. I can't help but wonder if that "pre-curve" aids in the futher curving of the carabiner when under heavy load and ultimately a premature gate opening.

I think the most likely reason why the gate slipped on that particular pull is that the contact point with the quick link was further away from the spine, which caused a larger bending moment.  

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I did notice that two of the carabiners broke that were at the end of the chain of biners. When I have broken sewn slings and tent tie outs, the most force seems to be on the end most points. The stitch line or tack bursts nearest the attachment to the weight/jack/truck etc. I would assume the same would be for a chain of carabiners.

Demetri V wrote:

When?

Swedish national hero, Joran Kropp broke a carabiner in a fatal fall on Air Guitar. You can find the Swedish Academy of Sciences analysis on the web I think. There are handfuls of carabiner failures. Many obvious nose-hooks; some obvious cross-loads; but some open gate; it's pretty easy to tell open gate failure from the deformation of the failed carabiner. Once upon a time, the open gate strength was 6 kN in the standard; carabiners broke that way lots. Bumped to 7 kN, not so much, but sometimes. Think of it as about a sigma in the gaussian.

My quick check of data from Helmut Maegdefrau's thesis where he had people take falls and recorded data in a climbing gym has 6.95 kN and 9.5 kN forces recorded on the top protection.

Demetri V wrote:

When?

There are times when rope management (drag) can prevent the rope from absorbing force in the desired way. On traversing routes it can be hard to prevent the problem and higher loads on the top piece can result. Just one example.

Is the takeaway here that I shouldn’t load my Photons beyond MBS multiple times in a row because it might deform the carabiner? I think I can manage that. 

Drew Scott wrote:

Is the takeaway here that I shouldn’t load my Photons beyond MBS multiple times in a row because it might deform the carabiner? I think I can manage that. 

I think the takeaway is that you should consider Photons to be open-gate rated only. Closed gate if you like Russian Roulette odds. 

Max R wrote:

I’ve been a long time photon and nano 22 lover. But man…ya’ll are making me reevaluate my life.

Sometimes the gates don’t close fully on my photon alpine draws and i have to manually close them. 

The leader must never fall, right?

Brandon R wrote:

Closed gate if you like Russian Roulette odds. 

*with a million round cylinder 

Re: original posting- you can do this with a brand new one as well. It's just a matter of bending it to the side around the nose. You can put it back just as easily. 

Brandon R wrote:

I think the takeaway is that you should consider Photons to be open-gate rated only. Closed gate if you like Russian Roulette odds. 

Wow, I must be a real badass then. Cuz I’ve spent lots of time above pieces clipped with photons. 

How can you say this? Because of the video? Any gear that goes to 20+ kn (I.e. the photon in the vid that became deformed) probably be retired. If you’re basing this in the gates sometimes being sticky, you probably shouldn’t climb on camalots either. I’ve seen lots of sticky lobes on those. Pieces pull from sticky lobes.