Tugging on Cams Rant

This is not an in good faith rant.

Meh, so long as nobody's yarding sideways on my cams in shallow placements hard enough to kink the stems, it really doesn't bother me.  Your own cams, not my problem, just don't do it to mine please.

rgoldwrote:

I  thought I covered all your objections in my post, and the point was that we have to consider a lot more than the outcome of a jerk test.  The idea that eliminating one possible source of cam failure might induce a false sense of security is your only remaining point.  That addresses the mentality of the individual, and is beyond the realm of technical considerations.  Depending on the person, you might be right. 

Long and somewhat sad experience suggests that an overconfident attitude obtained from partial information is not an exclusive feature of noob activity.

No, Ser Gold, I think you greatly simplify my arguments to minimize it to a single point in the above statement. My points were that the situation is far more complex than a simple tug can diagnose and that beginning climbers are placing far too much confidence in a tug than in an overall assessment of all the factors.

See this video beginning at the 2:05 mark for an extreme example of my point. A terrible totem cam placement holds 2kn so would easily survive tugs but not remotely hold leader fall loads. IMO, the idea that in the real world if a cam holds your small tugs it has given you information that it nearly always will hold larger forces simply doesn't hold up.

Respectfully, have you ever aided for days on cams? Why don't aid climbers simply tug test their cams? Why do they aggressively bounce test them and even then wonder if they are going to hold?

While your fine response earlier in the thread got something like 50 "likes" and counting I doubt seriously that anyone with big wall experience aiding on cams (esp c2/3) is in the "tug test is adequate" camp. This is the issue I am attempting to confront as newbies continually tug on their terrible placements then convince themselves they are gtg. They have bought into the tug test myth and it's dangerous.

I only have something like 15 Grade V's and VI routes under my belt with hundreds and hundreds of cams placed and weighted and sometimes fallen on and many that failed bounce tests...experience like this is worth far more than an engineering calculus that predicts that force increases with load and if it will hold a tiny load it will hold a big one. Even bounce testing only gives us info that the cam will hold body weight (probably, even then they sometimes blow).

So, imo, it's the overall assessment of the placement (ie splitter parallel crack with ideal lobe contact) that gives true assurance that the cam is bomber. Everything else is a judgment call regardless of tugging success. Hence, tugging is not useful as a load test, in my experience.

Setting a marginal cam to bite into a grainy crack (ie Joshua Tree) to resist walking or misalignment of the lobes, I got no problem with that. Tugging on them to convince yourself it's a good placement is a terrible idea. The accident record that so often features cam failure may be testament to this misplaced confidence.

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

No, Ser Gold, I think you greatly simplify my argument to minimize it in the above statement. My points were that the situation is far more complex than a simple tug can diagnose and that beginning climbers are placing far too much confidence in a tug than in an overall assessment of all the factors.

See this video beginning at the 2:05 mark for an extreme example of my point. A terrible totem cam placement holds 2kn so would easily survive tugs but not remotely hold leader fall loads. IMO, the idea that in the real world if a cam holds your small tugs it has given you information that it nearly always will hold larger forces simply doesn't hold up.

Respectfully, have you ever aided for days on cams? Why don't aid climbers simply tug test their cams? Why do they aggressively bounce test them and even then wonder if they are going to hold?

While your fine response earlier in the thread got something like 50 "likes" and counting I doubt seriously that anyone with big wall experience aiding on cams (esp c2/3) is in the "tug test is adequate" camp. This is the issue I am attempting to confront as newbies continually tug on their terrible placements then convince themselves they are gtg. They have bought into the tug test myth and it's dangerous.

I only have something like 15 Grade V's and VI routes under my belt with hundreds and hundreds of cams placed and weighted and sometimes fallen on and many that failed bounce tests...experience like this is worth far more than an engineering calculus that predicts that force increases with load and if it will hold a tiny load it will hold a big one. Even bounce testing only gives us info that the cam will hold body weight (probably, even then they sometimes blow). Have you seen cams fall out after a flake has expanded from subsequent placements? I have.

So, imo, it's the overall assessment of the placement (ie splitter parallel crack with ideal lobe contact) that gives true assurance that the cam is bomber. Everything else is a judgment call regardless of tugging success. Hence, tugging is not useful as a load test, in my experience.

Setting a marginal cam to bite into a grainy crack (ie Joshua Tree) to resist walking or misalignment of the lobes, I got no problem with that. Tugging on them to convince yourself it's a good placement is a terrible idea. The accident record that so often features cam failure may be testament to this misplaced confidence.

Tugging on cams does one thing: it tests whether the coefficient of friction of the placement is adequate.  In this sense, its only value is if the test fails. If the test succeeds, you've got adequate friction, but all the other issues involving cam/rock interaction are still in play and have to be judged by other means. I can see where you misunderstand the point about holding a tiny load implies holding a big one; that comment applies only to the friction action. My description of other failure modes was meant to complement that statement and place it in its proper perspective. It was never meant--and I don't think it says--that holding a small jerk means your cam will necessarily hold a big load. It was never meant--and I don't think it says--that "a tug test is adequate." In case that misreading is possible, I hereby disavow it. At some point, I'll go back and edit my comment to emphasize this.

But getting back to the original issue, if you jerk on a cam and it fails, you have just learned something critical about that placement.  Why should anyone choose to ignore that baseline holding power information when the test is often so quickly and easily implemented?  And why heap scorn upon folks who do that? One reason might be big wall experience.  If you're going to bounce-test the cam anyway, why bother tugging it?  But if you are free-climbing, your cam isn't going to get any test until it's fallen on. Doesn't it make sense to at least check that there is adequate friction?

Since we're invoking experience, sadly, I know of cases that have had very severe consequences in which that tug test might have saved the day.  I myself have gone up and tested a catastrophically failed placement, and indeed, the cam did not pass the tug test. This was a crack with an uncharacteristically smooth interior, perhaps from water polishing. It was otherwise a perfect parallel-sided placement of a red or green camalot.   It is different from most of the other features in the area.  Someone would still be climbing rather than living an injury-limited life from a ground fall if that test had been performed. This particular incident illustrates that even if we are very familiar with our crag, certain features might be uncharacteristically insecure.  But the real importance of the tug test is probably for those who climb on a lot of different and possibly unfamiliar rock types.  Basalt, slate, and limestone are all examples in which placements that appear good for structural reasons can be inadequate, and in those cases, a tug test seems to me to be a very good idea.

Here's one example; https://youtu.be/faKH_cU2RBg.  I have two more such videos on my hard drive but can't locate them online.  If I find them I'll add them to the post.

Gum Bwrote:

What, you're just gonna place a cam, NOT tug on it, and say "bomber!"? That's just part of the ritual bro. 

That’s not going anywhere.

Perhaps another "ritual" might help make rgold's point for some:  On a rappel route, consider the lowly "bump test" to slightly load everything just before going on rappel. For most, it is done before untethering from the anchor.

Like Hamster Bongwaffle's concern about the cam tug test relative to new folks, I tend to worry that new folks will internalize the bump test as a replacement for a 100% visual inspection of the anchor and the threading of the rap device.  It may indeed catch things like when two rope strands are threaded through an ATC with only one rope around the biner.  But it does not replace the 100% visual inspection.

Still, your gonna die.

That phrase is wore out 

Calebwrote:

When they’re hard to see, I tug, wiggle and push cams.  Whatever it takes to see how they set and how they might move.  But I could see how it could just be a nervous habit that wastes energy.  

The noob mistake that irks me is putting an alpine draw on every, or nearly every piece.

i think it's worse when i see folks who never put in a draw, and following people like that is a pain because the pieces wiggle and get burried

Never/always rants are rarely/never useful.

Visualize rigging a TR in a zero pressure environment. Casting about for placements. Some appear ok others are flared etc. You have plenty of time the footing is casual. Maybe your kid is going to climb on it. 

philip bonewrote:

That phrase is wore out 

Is there a new cool phrase for “climbing is dangerous”?

Obviously, I need help keeping up. ;)

Hamster is mostly correct, but he is just what I call an “advanced n00b”.  

The truly honed zen master of trad doesn’t waste time visually analyzing placements let alone tugging on them.  Information is aid and leads to complacency and a false sense of security.   Place and go.  Gear should flow off your rack without conscious thought. This is most efficient, and we all know speed and efficiency = safety.  

The less experienced casual observer may see what appears to them as a “sketchy” novice leader with gear popping out and sliding down the rope as he effortlessly ascends….however the cognoscenti recognize a true master at work.  Know the difference.

Mark Pilatewrote:

Hamster is mostly correct, but he is just what I call an “advanced n00b”.  

The truly honed zen master of trad doesn’t waste time visually analyzing placements let alone tugging on them.  Information is aid and leads to complacency and a false sense of security.   Place and go.  Gear should flow off your rack without conscious thought. This is most efficient, and we all know speed and efficiency = safety.  

The less experienced casual observer may see what appears to them as a “sketchy” novice leader with gear popping out and sliding down the rope as he effortlessly ascends….however the cognoscenti recognize a true master at work.  Know the difference.

Good lord!  You've gone to the dark side. ;)

rgoldwrote:

Respectfully, Ser Gold, the above video testing in a unique rock type does not demonstrate the utility of tug testing your cams while climbing in an area that is well established as cam suitable. 

It demonstrates the fundamental unsuitability for cams in that type of rock alone. Certainly, the locals were well aware of this before this recorded test and hundreds of climbers had not been blissfully unaware of it in that region....none of whom ever tested that cams work or not there since they were invented? Once established, probably long ago, everyone there knew not to trust any placement in all likelihood.

And your example of the cam pulling out of water polished rock (at the Gunks IIRC?) is an example of watching out for water polished, wet or mossy rock again, not an example of the utility of tug testing other than your verification of what likely caused the accident. I hope the individual affected fully recovers. Unfortunately, this outlying case there was discovered the hard way but rock with slick surfaces was well known to not be suitable for cams. Has another cam ever failed at the Gunks? I bet they have and it was unrelated to tugging on the cam or not. It was straight up the quality of the placement as determined by the leader's judgement.

These are outlying anecdotes, like the recent unfortunate accident at Red Rock where a sling mysteriously unclipped from pro leading to a nasty fall. (my condolences and hope for a full recovery).

Do we now put locking carabiners on every piece or steadfastly make that recommendation?

Let's take Indian Creek for another example. Are tug tests useful in the splitters there? No, they are not. Everyone who climbs there is well aware that cams will rip out under severe forces yet damn near anything will meet the minimal "tug test" criteria as cams bite so well in Wingate (but then the rock fails when it gets serious). Only with security in numbers with closely spaced cams be safely fallen on there. 

Again, at ie Red Rock, the rock is relatively soft and friable so many cams will pass tug testing but will never hold severe fall loads. Is a tug tested cam there better than nothing? Doubtful, and it is creating a false sense of security which it appears to for many. I personally place no stock in false senses of security for newbies nor do I encourage the same. It it doesn't look good at Red Rock it's sheit.

And what about tipped or (edit) under-cammed placements in any stone? Both will hold tugs but fail under heavy loads....

We agree that tug testing is never more than part of the picture of a safe climbing protection system. Never use tug testing as a sole criterion for security.

Suitable rock, nice and parallel walls and proper engagement of the cam angles are all more useful than tug testing in all but the rarest of cases, imo.

I maintain that tug testing is useless unless it's being used to establish the facts of an accident or fundamental rock suitability as one offs. Out on lead it's a fool's errand, imo. You need real testing (bounce) that is impractical free climbing to make a reasoned judgment.

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

And what about tipped or over-cammed placements in any stone? Both will hold tugs but fail under heavy loads....

Wait what

Sprayloard Overstokerwrote:

We've reached the point of going around in circles.  The arguments are out there, and folks can reach their own conclusions.

Oh but by the way: overcammed placements are fine in terms of holdng power.  The problem with them is difficulty of removal.  I'm guessing you meant "undercammed."

It was fun while it lasted. 

Im just laughing at the amount of men debating about the effectiveness of tugging. Everyone knows bounce testing is how you determine a "cams" "holding power".

I don't always tug them. In fact, I might rarely tug them.

If they look suspicious, I'll tug. Sometimes they pop out. I will say, if they look suspicious and pass the tug test, I still don't trust the placement.

rgoldwrote:

We've reached the point of going around in circles.  The arguments are out there, and folks can reach their own conclusions.

Oh but by the way: overcammed placements are fine in terms of holdng power.  The problem with them is difficulty of removal.  I'm guessing you meant "undercammed."

Thank you for being gracious about that typo.

I will also concede there may be some regional bias at work here where Yosemite climbers with significant aiding on cams experience have their views. Certainly, the experience of a serious accident at your home crag due to unforeseen factors can greatly inform one's own opinion.