Broken Cam thread

I am the dissenter, I guess. While I like to look at broken cams and speculate, I don't really find these threads enlightening at all. Too often we look to blame the gear. It very rarely is. It's the rock, and it's us. If if we place gear perfectly correctly (which not even the very best will do every time), we still have no guarantees. Weird things happen in falls.

Smaller cams that are mangled but that held the fall did their job. They really aren't guaranteed in any way, let alone for longevity. I do think X4s *might* be more fragile than other pieces of similar size, but we can sadly learn so little from anecdotes like this, because we don't know what happened and we never will.

(When BD replaces gear, they're just being decent people: there is almost certainly nothing wrong with X4s.)

But Note: we really fetishize light gear these days. Light gear will break quicker, so in a certain sense we expect this.

And Kris: you are *whipping* on your gear. Kudos!

But expect to be replacing small cams regularly.

teece303 wrote: But Note: we really fetishize light gear these days. Light gear will break quicker, so in a certain sense we expect this.

Agree for sure on this point. 10 years ago I was always chasing the lightest this or that (pack, biner, rope, pants, whatever), but recently I have begun to think that we have run up on the limits of the reasonable. That is, my newer gear does not last anywhere near as long as it used to (technical and non-technical), and newer stuff just doesn't seem to put up with the abuse well. I think its because you simply can't make gear that is ultra-lightweight and durable at the same time....something has to give. Moreover, for the casual user, there really isn't a reason to be shaving a tenth of an ounce off of your weekend trad rack. I mean, I will still buy wiregates over old BD Quicksilver 2's, but you can easily overdo this....i.e. schlepping gear to the weekend crag doesn't have the same weight saving requirements as Steve House doing some crazy single push gig.

And to Delly84, thanks for the pics; the one of the broken biner is sort of sobering no matter what the breaking circumstances were.

Mike Marmar wrote: KrisFiore, the fact that two of the lobes were inverted means that there was room for them to invert, right? Doesn't that mean it could not have been a perfect placement? Can you describe the placement? Is there an irregularity or outward flare of any kind?

(I wish I had a picture of this crack) It's close to perfectly parallel sided though schist is notoriously a bit strange. I said at one point that I can't argue the placement was perfect since obviously something went wrong but it must have been moved at some point between the third and fourth fall.

I agree with teece303 as well.

teece303 wrote: It very rarely is. It's the rock, and it's us. If if we place gear perfectly correctly (which not even the very best will do every time), we still have no guarantees. Weird things happen in falls. Smaller cams that are mangled but that held the fall did their job.

I'm not so much looking to blame the gear as I am trying to see if I'm the only one with this experience. Again, I have only ever heard of 3 cams breaking in my circle of friends and it makes you raise an eyebrow to realize that they were all the same make and model. I guess that was more my point in posting. Also, in agreeing with teece303, we rarely will place the gear perfectly. I guess I just want a cam that is more forgiving to a placement that is a few millimeters away from perfect which is next to impossible to notice while climbing through the crux of an 11d fingercrack.

Thanks for the comments everyone. It's good to hear what people are thinking.

KrisFiore wrote: I guess I just want a cam that is more forgiving to a placement that is a few millimeters away from perfect

Kris, I think you have to agree that the placement wasn't perfect at the moment of impact. It may have started out kosher but your photos tell a different story on how it ended up. Plus that 2mm does make a difference. It may have been picture perfect C4 but not so much X4.

C4 _____ X4
13.8-23.4 __ 12.4-21.2 -- expansion range in mm
9.7 ____ 8.8 -- difference
6.72 ____ 6.16 -- usable range 70% of total
18.6 @ 50% _ 18.6 @ 70% -- mm @ percentage open

You can see that those 2mm are about 1/3 of the usable range. Making the C4 still inside the good range @ 18.6mm and the X4 at the upper end of it.
The C4 & X4 .3's are not the same.

you see that grey X4 that caught my parter after his red X4 blew out?

that had to be retired, the lobes seized up ... i know the placement myself, the slot is a perfect grey dragon/C4/X4 spot

one of my other partners also had the trigger cables come out ... no falls or unusual cleaning out of funkay cracks ...

i suspect theyre still working out some bugs

two things ...

- as said make sure the pieces are extended so they dont walk/rotate

- never ever ever trust a single micro/small cam if you can help it ... if you can get a solid nut in ... or several micro/small cams

;)

teece303 wrote:And Kris: you are *whipping* on your gear. Kudos! But expect to be replacing small cams regularly.

I take exception to this idea. In fact, it bugs me. We spend lots of money on cams and I expect them to work a long time.

Most of my Alien rack, about 25 pieces, rack is from 99 to about 2002. Most I bought around then although some I got used later.

I've lobbed on every piece I own, many times. Maybe too many. I've placed them wrong and blown them out of the crack. I've had rock fail. I've aided on all of them, and as my favorite cam I've placed them a lot. This is 15yr old gear.

The only one that had a "failure" like this was a blue alien that was in pretty bad limestone that I was aiding up to bolt. I did break the spring on that one. Other than easily repaired trigger wires, all but that blue have never had an issue. The rest are on my daily rack.

With all that use the only problem I've got is that a lot of my cams are somewhat smaller than spec because the metal is getting worn off. I should probably replace my slings now that I think about it too.

15 year old cams, overuse, abuse, and fine in 24 out of 25 cases.

X4 seems to be severely lacking in this category. Sure we can blame the person or the placement but they can't take a hard knock. Think steel bike frames and eggshell thin aluminum high tech carbon whatever. Both work but only one gets up from a crash.

To those frequent flyers among us: two falls is a good time to call a time-out, lower, switch ends, or just plain let the rope rest awhile. Three falls should be a mandatory time-out.
No mention of how much rope is out during your falls, but falling on the same point of rope 1. trashes the rope and 2. degrades the rope's dynamic response. #1 is economics; if you've got the money, just buy a new rope. But #2 can't be fixed with money: the rope needs time to return to a safe elasticity. Each fall removed some, and eventually your piece was taking a higher, more "static" shock load. The cam took 4 falls, which means it could no longer live up to its original specs (small pcs. in particular lose strength with each fall), it may have moved or deformed slightly, but in the end, I think your rope transferring greater force to the piece played a major role. It is amazing it didn't break.
Religiously inspect your placement/s after a whip - with small pcs, this means pulling them out, inspecting, and reseating - inspect the rock, the 'biners, runners, and rope if there's any doubt. And religiously give your rope a rest after 3 falls (max).
All this said, it does seem suspicious that this is happening to the same type of cam. I suspect BD is in testing mode on this already.

I think Jay might have a point. Take 4 successive whippers and not giving the rope time to rest could be a factor here. After each whip, review the gear and make sure nothings walked out.

What inspires my confidence here is the fact that the cam held. It may have been damaged, but it didn't fail. Rather buy new gear than deck.

Jay Harrison wrote: It is amazing it didn't break.

I'm not trying to exaggerate but that assertion is incredibly inaccurate.

A single rope with a UIAA Fall Rating of 7 would experience a 1.77 factor fall every 5 minutes before breaking on the 7th fall. A 1.77 factor fall is enormous.

I fell four times with a rest of around 5 minutes per fall. None of the falls would be even close to a 1.77 fall factor. At the very most I can calculate would be around .2-.3. And that is overestimating the fall and underestimating the rope length.

I'm not trying to detract from this post but that is some serious misinformation.

It might have led to a slightly less dynamic fall on the cam, but there is no way it's not even close to surprising that the rope didn't break.

Jay Harrison wrote:To those frequent flyers among us: two falls is a good time to call a time-out, lower, switch ends, or just plain let the rope rest awhile. Three falls should be a mandatory time-out. No mention of how much rope is out during your falls, but falling on the same point of rope 1. trashes the rope and 2. degrades the rope's dynamic response. #1 is economics; if you've got the money, just buy a new rope. But #2 can't be fixed with money: the rope needs time to return to a safe elasticity. Each fall removed some, and eventually your piece was taking a higher, more "static" shock load. The cam took 4 falls, which means it could no longer live up to its original specs (small pcs. in particular lose strength with each fall), it may have moved or deformed slightly, but in the end, I think your rope transferring greater force to the piece played a major role. It is amazing it didn't break. Religiously inspect your placement/s after a whip - with small pcs, this means pulling them out, inspecting, and reseating - inspect the rock, the 'biners, runners, and rope if there's any doubt. And religiously give your rope a rest after 3 falls (max). All this said, it does seem suspicious that this is happening to the same type of cam. I suspect BD is in testing mode on this already.

the piece itself shouldnt break after repeated falls as long as it doesnt shift and the rock doesnt change ... as long as it doesnt exceed its 8 KN rating (which WONT feel like a moderate fall)

of course one should re-evaluate the piece each time after a fall in case it doe shift or the rock fractures

as to the force the rope exerts .... clip in direct just like sport climbing for resting ...

or buy a beal rope ...

Apart from Wall Master V, with very specific properties, all the single ropes have a maximum impact force of around 7-kN, and the double ropes around 5-kN.
But we go much further, because at the end of the series of successive test falls, our ropes still do not exceed the limit which is only required for the first fall! When you consider that rope loses some of its dynamic qualities with each fall, this is an incredible performance, guaranteed only by BEAL!

bealplanet.com/sport/anglai…

old ropes can be very problematic as well ... not because they break but because of the loss of dynamic properties

from WeightMyRAck and UIAA

;)

bearbreeder wrote:or buy a beal rope

It was a Beal.

KrisFiore wrote: It was a Beal.

the "increase in force" due to multiple falls aint the problem then

if you were belayed with an ATC with that theoretical fall factor and the rope had a decently straight path (and didnt get caught) ... theres no way on gods green earth that cam would see enough force to "break" it in a perfect placement

as a note i suspect that several things might be causing the x4 "problems" ...

- they arent passively rated like the C4s in the red/blue/yellow ... so you cant treat em like the C4s in those sizes .... weve heard several times now about X4s "breaking" when the climber previously whipped on a C4 in the same spot (remember the infamous 3 "broken" x4 thread?)

- as i pointed out when they first cam out the X4s are stiffer than the aliens ... even though you might be able to bend em as far, it takes more force to do so ... this is because of ...

- the longer metal sheave at the head, significantly longer than the alien which reduces the overall flexibility in leveraging placements and focuses the force that spot... indeed there have been some badly kinked x4s posted on MP

- the less flexible bead sheath and stem wire .. the alien is more flexible (takes less force to bend)

- the open loose sling on the alien slides more easily than the doubled sewed sling on the X4

- this means that the X4 IMO walks/rotates more than the alien ... before the totem cam came out the aliens (and zero) were known as the cam least likely to walk because of its extremely flexible nature ...

- the softer metal on the alien which deforms the solid lobes slightly ... this is IMO one of the major reason why the aliens are known to hold so well ... the X4 has harder aluminum

i suspect that some of these cases of "broken" X4s is folks treating the cams just like the passively rated C4s or more flexible and less likely to walk aliens ...

all cams have their little idiosyncrasies ... and when you get to the micro level, they do matter

;)

can someone explain why bottoming out a cam is bad? I was taught early on to not do it, so I don't, but I've never actually considered the repercussions. On a horizontal instead of a vertical the pivoting/force against the back isn't as big of a deal, yes? sorry I'm just trying to picture how that cam cracked by bottoming out.

You often need to push them a wee bit forward while pulling the trigger to get the lobes to retract while cleaning.

If it's bottomed out, it's far harder to clean and might even get stuck.

This reminds me of the way the Alien failure discussion started. People showing up with broken cams and a bunch of apologists tried to explain it away or blame the users....

The rare times I've ever heard of anything like this occurring with a Metolius cam, it's always been the smaller ones that they suggest are only for aid. The story goes exactly like this: "Yo man, a purple Metolius broke on me"

"Yeah, wow, what happened?"

"Took a 20' whipper on it"

(It's the 3rd from smallest cam they make that Metolius rates to 5kn/1100lb and suggests is an aid only piece)

It sucks because I just bought a set of offset X4s and I was liking them. I did note that the Metolius TCUs had a smaller head width profile though.

Rob D. wrote:can someone explain why bottoming out a cam is bad? I was taught early on to not do it, so I don't, but I've never actually considered the repercussions. On a horizontal instead of a vertical the pivoting/force against the back isn't as big of a deal, yes? sorry I'm just trying to picture how that cam cracked by bottoming out.

There is nothing wrong with a cam that's pushed all the way to the bottom of a crack, as long as other criteria are met first. In some cases it's the preferred placement, since the cam has nowhere to walk.

The cam needs to align with he fall direction. In horizontal placements that are directly below you, a bottomed out cam is OK if not even more desirable. In a vertical placement the cam needs to be in the direction of pull. If it's not, torque will be applied to the cam. Forcing the bottom lobes into the crack. If those lobes bottom out, the misaligned cam will lever the upper lobes out adding to the stress on said cam.

You must do everything within your abilities as the human placing the pro to increase the surface area withstanding the force. Any horizontal placement of a cam (in vertical direction) or ice screw for that matter reduces surface area engaged in the result of a fall. Then there are many circumstances that even though placed correctly, when you clip your cam or ice screw directly onto the rope vs extending it to anticipate (downward vs outward) where the rope will engage the cam in the event of a fall...that not enough surface area will take the force when it is actually applied at some exact point. Once a cam gets a chance to move (micro amount), particularly in soft rock, it will fail a high percentage of the time. It is humbling to see this first hand and would be cool if every one could experience it without the potential negative results.

KrisFiore wrote: I'm not trying to exaggerate but that assertion is incredibly inaccurate. A single rope with a UIAA Fall Rating of 7 would experience a 1.77 factor fall every 5 minutes before breaking on the 7th fall. A 1.77 factor fall is enormous. I fell four times with a rest of around 5 minutes per fall. None of the falls would be even close to a 1.77 fall factor. At the very most I can calculate would be around .2-.3. And that is overestimating the fall and underestimating the rope length. I'm not trying to detract from this post but that is some serious misinformation. It might have led to a slightly less dynamic fall on the cam, but there is no way it's not even close to surprising that the rope didn't break.

I think Jay was referring to the cam not breaking due to the fact of the rope losing its dynamic properties with each successive fall.

Also, as bearbreeder mentioned, even if you're taking 5 minute rests between falls, if you don't clip directly to a piece while resting, then you're not really allowing the rope to recover.

Billcoe wrote:This reminds me of the way the Alien failure discussion started. People showing up with broken cams and a bunch of apologists tried to explain it away or blame the users.... The rare times I've ever heard of anything like this occurring with a Metolius cam, it's always been the smaller ones that they suggest are only for aid. The story goes exactly like this: "Yo man, a purple Metolius broke on me" "Yeah, wow, what happened?" "Took a 20' whipper on it" (It's the 3rd from smallest cam they make that Metolius rates to 5kn/1100lb and suggests is an aid only piece) It sucks because I just bought a set of offset X4s and I was liking them. I did note that the Metolius TCUs had a smaller head width profile though.

nope ... they have nothing currently on their mastercam page about the grey and purple being "aid only" ...

metolius masteracam page

the grey and purple metolius have had quite a few cases of the cam stops breaking from cleaning alone ... and other reasons

some well respected MPers have had issues over the years ....

micro cams are very problematic even in the best of conditions .... every microcam has some kind of quirk or issue


--------------

I also climbed on a purple mastercam that had a snapped-off cam stop.

The cam stops on Master Cams are necessary for the cam to work in any mode. The spring curls around the cam stop and without it in place, there is no spring tension.

It was on a friend's rack we were using for the day, the piece was quite new, and he said he couldn't figure out how it had broken since he hadn't weighted the piece yet.

I didn't realize that cam was broken until I went to place it and noticed that half of the lobes didn't expand after I pulled the trigger.

Metolius's response was basically that damage happens to small and finnicky gear, and they had no way to ensure I hadn't abused the gear, which is obviously all true. They weren't going to replace it. -blakeherrington

---------

Not sure how this happened. This #0 rarely gets placed and has never been hung on or taken a single fall, but one of the cam stops has completely sheared off the lobe. The spring has also been displaced on the axle which has affected the lobe's retraction. Has anyone else experienced similar damage with their Mastercams? If so, how was Metolius in providing service/replacement?
-Count Chockula

--------

I had this happen on a purple TCUs (same lobes as MCam), but mine broke in a fall. Without the cam-stop, the cam is useless. I see this as a design flaw on the grey and purple. I didn't bother to email Metolius about it since I got the thing for like $30 and I was on a road trip. They may very well replace the lobe if you send it in, but I've always thought that was a bit of a hassle if you use your gear often. I got a couple of C3's on sale to compliment my Aliens, but still like the TCU's blue to Orange. - Ryan Williams, Administrator

---------

send the cams back. the guys at metolius are super nice!
on another note, this is nothing new. look at old forums...
i sent back a bunch (maybe 6, i can't remember) it is not just
the master cams, it is also the tcu's that have the same problem.
i mentioned to the r&d dept. about changing the design of the cam stops to a triangle shape. (like the larger cams have) seems like a simple fix, but what do i know... (they never did get back to me)
oh, and by the way they told me (if i remember correctly)
1.5 kill-a-cam-stop-newtons on the little square buggers.
which means you can put the cam in a vise in your garage, without engaging the cams, yank on it, and break them. ;) -Cor

-------

Wow - I was surprised to see this post. I just had the exact same issue with my purple # o Metolius Master cam last week. I called Metolius about it and they basically said it was toast and there was nothing they could do "one for the trophy wall" . This is after consulting two mountain shops for advise about it and they both thought I should call. None of my other cams seem to have this problem as of yet. Some sort of design flaw? Or just bad luck? Anyway, I bought a new one to replace it - Hopefully it will be more robust. -Alan Ream

-------

I recently had a cam stop failure on my purple master cam as well. It was bought when the master cams first came out. The good folks at rock and snow got on the horn with metolius they sent them some pics of the cam stop/heads and i got a new cam. The new lobes are the major difference. The lobes are now smooth. According to metolius the grooved lobes weakened the milled stop and was a design weakness effecting both the purple and grey. My question now is my 00/grey hasn't failed yet but i dont feel like waiting till it does. Will metolius take back a unbroken cam that they havent officially recalled? -worth russell

--------

I had a broken cam stop on my 00/0 offset mastercam rendering it useless. I emailed Metolius and described the situation and they fixed it up and replaced the sling for free.

I had been aid climbing and trad climbing with it for a few years now. It never took a fall so they honored the warranty. I didn't notice when I broke the cam stop. Found out at home when resorting gear so I'm not sure exactly when it happened. It must have been from aid climbing when putting weight on it and bounce testing it. -randy88fj62

------

This year I sent back a purple (0) Mastercam because one of the cam stops had sheared off. This seemed like my fault and I thought I'd have to buy a new replacement. I sent it back to Metolius, hoping that they would fix the cam for less than the cost of a new one (maybe $30-$40) -ACassebeer

-----

I have one Offset Metolius Mastercam to supplement my set of hybrid Aliens. The cam was less than a year old, used less than 5 times and has never been fallen on. The cable is stuck and one of the cam stops broke. It is the worst piece of cam I've even owned in my 16 years of climbing. -Gunks

-----

As far as 0 and 00 Master Cams go, I too have had problems with the cam stops ripping off. Some people believe it is a warranty-covered issue. Others do not. Regardless, I believe the problem is the result of an engineering defect. The cam stops were poorly designed which resulted in a product that is not holding up in the field as well as comparable products. So, should consumers be entitled to a replacement? That is a hard question, but I would say yes they should be entitled to an exchange if the product is not functioning as it was designed. -20 kN

;)