Mountain Project Logo

Broken Cam

Original Post
John McNamee · · Littleton, CO · Joined Jul 2002 · Points: 1,690

Over on Sp.com there has been a discussion about a Omega Cam which broke.

Here is a picture I stole from the site:

cam

See the full story at:

supertopo.com/climbing/thre…

Or if you haven't got time here is a post from Omega Pacific:

Hello, Everyone ...

Two issues look like they're converging here in an unlikely mix.

First is the issue of the broken cam Melissa linked from rc.com. That's being addressed with the owner of the cam and openly on that thread. We (Omega Pacific) got the cam last week and we're conducting tests to determine what may have contributed to this failure. My post on that forum is included below for your reference. It's also the most recent information we have, so far. As more becomes available, we'll be transparent about the whats, the whys and the what-we're-gonna-dos as we always are.

Second is the prison issue ...

We used to participate in the US D.O.J.s "Prison Industry Enhancement Program" which permits companies in participating states to move their operations inside a qualifying medium-security prison and employ inmates as workers, clerks, shippers, etc.

We did so for nine years and it was (is) an incredible program. It wasn't slave labor. In fact, it wasn't even cheap labor. We were audited by Washington State annually to ensure we were paying our employees the same wage we'd pay any other worker on the outside for the same job. The program was demonstrably responsible for lower recidivism rates. It kept families together while their husband/father/breadwinner was incarcerated as most of our employees sent their wages back home to their families. They paid federal income tax like you and me. They paid into the state's worker's comp program like you and me. A portion of their wage went to victim restitution. Our employees in that program were as equipped, trained and qualified as any person in any climbing company in our industry. In fact, they were principally responsible for earning our company its ISO 9001 status in 2003.

In 2004, however, Washington State withdrew from that program and forced our relocation and the replacement of our workforce.

It was AFTER the move to our new location and the hiring of our new workforce that we even began building Link Cams ... not that it would matter, though.

Our previous crew was obsessive about building and maintaining a "Zero Defect Culture" and we enjoyed an excellent quality record during the time we were inside the prison. They took it more seriously than you think. And they did understand what we were making and how important it was to get it right, believe me.

The move to our new facility was a struggle in a lot of ways because we lost all that history and knowledge and it took some time before we were back to where we were. But we did get back and part of that success was our hiring of former employees who'd worked for us while they were incarcerated but were since released. Approximately eleven or twelve percent of our current labor force are former employees, in fact. We are proud of the fact that we are carrying on the spirit of the program even if Washington forced us out.

But all this is old news, really, and completely irrelevant to the issue of this cam. I bring it up only to set the record straight. We are completely open about our involvement and support of this program and are more than happy to discuss it personally with anyone who's interested. Give me a call, if you'd like more information about it. I take a lot of pride in being involved with the program and the employees we worked with.

As for this cam, please see the post below ... we'll share more information as we complete our investigation and QC provides its report. I'd recommend you spend a few minutes reading the thread as there is a lot of good information there.

As always, if you want to reach me about this, give me a call or drop me an email: 800.360.3990 or info@omegapac.com

--ML

_______________________
Michael Lane
Sales & Marketing Director
Omega Pacific
Airway Heights, WA

Hi, Everyone ...

As Dirtme has stated, he and I have been in contact ... several times, actually ... and although we don't have a lot to go on, yet, we've begun our investigation and done what testing we can in advance of tomorrow, when the cam is due to arrive.

Many of you have posted good questions and we'll do our best to test to as many of them as possible and we'll be forthcoming with the answers as soon as we can. The fact is, though, that there may not be too much to share until the entire process is complete.

I was a climber before I worked for the industry, though, so I understand the need for info.

So, this might answer a couple of questions but it must be understood that this may or may not have any context to the issue Dirtme had last week.

We have tested the assembled links for what we call "over-edge" strength. That is, we set up a perpendicular force on one end of a set of outstretched links with the opposite end anchored, stressed over an obstacle, or edge at the mid-points to test the ultimate strength of the hinge points. For comparison, we also purchased and disassembled competitors' cams (four different brands representing all other major players in cams on the market today) and tested their solid, single-piece lobes in the same manner. Our linkage assemblies fail right in the center of the four other brands: some broke at greater levels of force and some broke at lower levels. We performed multiple tests for each brand. You'll have to trust me that these were brands we all know and trust. Deservedly so, I should add, as none of these failed at levels that would alarm anyone.

It must be recognized that there is no standard nor any required strength rating for lobes or links to meet when tested in this manner. Likewise, there is no standardized testing to determine same. It was done solely to confirm earlier, similar tests performed during our R&D phase and to establish--as best we can--some sort of consensus for similar products.

At this point, there isn't anything to suggest that this is not an isolated event. Obviously, there are a number of factors involved in Dirtme's incident. We'll work as best we can to account for them and to determine the cause of the failure.

Hope this helps for now. More to come.

Regards,

--ML

aluke · · PHX, AZ · Joined May 2007 · Points: 90

Being a metallurgist the minute I learned that OP used castings I said I would never use them. Castings just don't have the ductility and strength of forgings or other more refined manufacturing methods, even machining from bar stock. You are going to need more strength since there are so many joints which means more side to side play which implies added joint stress that the joints can't handle becuse they were cast. To be honest I love the idea and have thought about borrowing one and manufactureing something similar for myself, I have made my own nuts and hexes in the past. But what I can't belive is that the military uses these, I thought they always went for highest quality, of couse they may be basing quality on price in this circumstance, waisting our money more...

aluke · · PHX, AZ · Joined May 2007 · Points: 90

Edit: Actually they call it Metal Injection Molding which is a powder met part (not straight powder met but a version of it) which would also have significantly less strength.

John McNamee · · Littleton, CO · Joined Jul 2002 · Points: 1,690

Andrew,

Are you aware of any other cams made with this same method?

Thanks

John

aluke · · PHX, AZ · Joined May 2007 · Points: 90

Actually I have yet to find one that uses powder met (If that is what they mean by Injection Molding) And I stick with Trango and Black Diamond, my Metolius' were extruded and machined which is ok but not great and I did a microstructure analysis of BD's and they are definatly not PM or cast, PM doesn't work verry well with aluminum, 100% etruded and machined, really nice grainstructure on them. Pretty much all nuts, hexes and cam lobes have been extruded. Powder met just doesn't work that great for aluminum and a lot of cam lobes are aluminum so it is safe to say they are not PM, and I for sure hope non are ever cast. The part that failed was stainless steel which would be an ok part for PM but I can defantly tell by the part shape it would be very hard to forge, other cam lobe designs can be easily pressed/forged and machined or even extruded which isn't as good as forged and could be the same or less than machined.

Let me know though if there is something I missed on a gear company and I will defanitly make sure,(you mentioned other companies using tis process?) I know that none of my gear is PM or cast except my BD guide belay device might be cast,edit: it is forged, but it is just a friction applying device. Pretty sure no one else does though, there is no need to

John J. Glime · · Cottonwood Heights, UT · Joined Aug 2002 · Points: 1,160

I am not sure what it is exactly that you are afraid of, care to expound?

Equipment, regardless of how it was made, needs to meet strict standards. Then, the equipment only needs to perform within the parameters of rock climbing. Even Mal backs up Omega. So I guess I don't see what your point is.

dan lyons · · santa monica ca · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 40

are they on recall?

aluke · · PHX, AZ · Joined May 2007 · Points: 90

no they reacalled some due to bad pins and failures though, and I talked to a proffessor about the strength of this to confirm and yes these parts made of this method are less. No OP probably gets away with this because the standards and ratings are not placing the part under a stress to fail them. There are different ways to clasify strength as it somewhat of a genaric term. these parts probably don't have much ductility which is what I would want over just flat out breaking. Did I mention metal injection molding is a very expensive proccess? In my opinion they should do a little redesign so they can use forgings. Now I will admit I am not an expert in this area, I have had class on it but my experiance is in extractive met. Now these are probably still safe to use under normal circumstances, I wouldn't dare place them anywhere the lobes would go under tension ( anything but straight downward force, non plaralel cracks, or slightly sidewase cracks...) Notice that by looking at the part you don't see any evidence of a major fall. but again I won't buy them just because I don't think it to be a safe manufacturing proccess to trust your life to, trango max cams maybe? Less joints on them at least not sure how well they work.

John Calder · · Spokane, WA · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 235

Andrew,

Who uses Link Cams in the military? As for the military always going with top notch equipment, not always so. Most stuff is bought from the lowest bidder.

aluke · · PHX, AZ · Joined May 2007 · Points: 90

I just made the asumption that since they made a "tactical" version that no one else would want to pay the extra for a color that would be easy to loose...

Rui Ferreira · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2003 · Points: 903

Arguments against casting are misleading, given that the forging process itself typically encompasses the casting of the metals into ingots at the foundry and then the metal ingots are mechanically worked into their final shape. If there are differences and reliabiltiy issues between the two processes they certainly have not been explained well enough in the comments above.

aluke · · PHX, AZ · Joined May 2007 · Points: 90

The differance is that a 1000 pound ingot that was cast is then shaped into many many many 1 oz forgings, you no longer have a casting. When metal undergoes the deformation that happens durring forging (hot or cold working) the grain microstructure changes, now none of this is visible to the naked eye. In hot working (working above the recrystalization temp) the grains align themselfs better from the cast structure and produce a very fine grain size with a fibrous structure and anisotropic behavior... strain hardening and recrystallization is specific to forgings these changes in structure result in an increase in ductility and toughness over the cast state, forging yeilds a much higher strength to weight ratio, forged aluminium is about 30 per cent stronger than cast aluminium, you have to understand what happens to the metal to understand the diferances between forged, cast, powder met, and extruded parts. There are other ways to increase strength as well don' thonk that fargings are the only way to get good parts... good parts can be made lots of ways I just don't think these should be powder met. Any more insight I can give keep posting

Dogzilla · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 0

While I agree that the forging process can produce materials/products with exceptional properties, I think that it is misleading to tell the readers that casting and powder metallurgy processes/products are inferior to forged products.

Investment casting (which most gear companies use in their products) is the preferred process to manufacture highly complex shapes for high reliability applications. The next flight you take on a commercial aircraft will be riding on investment cast blades in the gas turbine engine as well as many of the parts in the airframe. Similarly, some of the best metal alloys available are produced via a powder metallurgy route.

The metal injection molding process (as mentioned) is a relatively new process (about 20 years old in commercial production) and is now widely used in many high reliability applications ranging from automotive turbochargers to medical instruments. It does differ from "conventional" press and sinter powder metallurgy in that it achieves very high density in the final materials. The result is materials that achieve properties that are close to and sometimes exceed wrought properties.

Taken in context, I am sure that Omega has done their homework on the technology used to manufacture their products and has tested them in accordance with CE specifications. Unfortunately they cannot dictate how we as climbers use (place) the product in the field which may stress a part in an unintended manner that can produce a failure, no matter how good the material may be.

Charles Danforth · · L'ville, CO · Joined Aug 2003 · Points: 170

Thanks for the fascinating discussion, folks. The more I hear about metallurgy, the more interesting and complicated it sounds. Given how much time I spend around "performance metals", it seems like something I should know a bit about. Can anyone recommend a good book on the subject aimed at the scientifically literate but non-engineering crowd (i.e., people not afraid of math, but for whom stress-strain graphs are not intuitive)?

Giza · · Pala, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 10

Fellas,

I posted a thread about these cams in March 2006 on the Big Walls Forum:

bigwalls.com/forum2/index.p…

Over the course of less than two years, the yellow cam was returned to OP first for a broken trigger wire and then for a fracture on one of the lobes, and the red cam was also returned due to a fracture on one of the lobes.

These cams were used for both aid and free climbing but didn't see any more abuse than anything else on the rack. I think they're a great idea but evidently they don't stand up to the abuse of day to day climbing like other cams do.

Healyje · · PDX · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 422
Giza wrote:...but evidently they don't stand up to the abuse of day to day climbing like other cams do.
I think once you factor out the initial manufacturing glitches, what's left is an innovative cam that is somewhat fragile. That's still a design / execution attribute or limitation which, in my opinion, makes this a cam which shouldn't be considered or treated like 'other cams'. I feel the same way about the Max Cam. Both are bold attempts to push the boundaries of cam design - they are inherently not like 'other cams'. If you try to treat either like they are you are bound to be disappointed, but in my book that disappointment will really be more a case of pilot error. Align your expectations with the design limitations, use these cams wisely, and they'll likely serve you well - treat them like any 'other cams' at your peril.
Giza · · Pala, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 10
Healyje wrote: I think once you factor out the initial manufacturing glitches, what's left is an innovative cam that is somewhat fragile. That's still a design / execution attribute or limitation which, in my opinion, makes this a cam which shouldn't be considered or treated like 'other cams'. I feel the same way about the Max Cam. Both are bold attempts to push the boundaries of cam design - they are inherently not like 'other cams'. If you try to treat either like they are you are bound to be disappointed, but in my book that disappointment will really be more a case of pilot error. Align your expectations with the design limitation, use these cams wisely, and they'll likely serve you well - treat them like any 'other cams' at your peril.
The only thing I agree with this post is that the Link Cam is a bold attempt pushing the boundaries of cam design. If pilot errors led to three returns to the manufacturer in less than two years then I guess I should take up knitting. These are the only cams I have ever owned that have crapped out on me so I'll stick to the cams that I know I can trust.
Avery N · · Boulder, CO · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 650

Giza -- thanks for posting the prior failures.

On the OP site they say and show this:

"During the course of the inspection, we subsequently discovered three units which have a small fissure in the steel linkage of the cam lobes.

Image from omegapac.com/op_climbing_no…

As unlikely as it sounds, destruct-testing of these units revealed that the defect does NOT reduce the overall strength of the units. In fact, the units we tested failed ABOVE rating..."

Doesn't the failure above appear to occur at the same location as one of the failures shown in the above photo? I am curious about which part failed first and if there is a relationship.

Giza -- is the the same location of your two lobe failures?

I will say that it is refreshing that OP is openly interacting with the climbing community.

Giza · · Pala, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 10

Avery,

I too think that OP has responded really well to these problems by actively communicating with the climbing community. I'm really impressed with how they have handled these issues.

Regarding the small fissure in the steel linkage, this was not the issue that we had. On both cams it was an outer lobe that had a visible micro-fracture upon inspection. I think these issues are independent of each other. To be clear, the micro-fractures on both the red and gold cams were observed before any failure of the unit, and they were subsequently sent to OP to be repaired or replaced.

Avery N · · Boulder, CO · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 650

Hmmm... a 'variety' of unintended fracture issues + manufacturing issues for just one product, over time.

Scary.

Healyje · · PDX · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 422
Giza wrote: The only thing I agree with this post is that the Link Cam is a bold attempt pushing the boundaries of cam design. If pilot errors led to three returns to the manufacturer in less than two years then I guess I should take up knitting. These are the only cams I have ever owned that have crapped out on me so I'll stick to the cams that I know I can trust.
The cable breaking was one of the 'initial manufacturing (or design) glitches' I was speaking of. So we are talking about two cam lobe fractures and the problem/issue there is they are fragile. In your post on BigWalls.net you say, "neither cams were abused more than anything else on the rack" and again I say you simply can't do that given they are fragile. If you crack jumar, put them in rough or pocketed placements and let the stem move, under-sling them, or put the solid stem over an edge - all bets are off because you clearly exceeding the limitations of the design and materials. It's simple - don't treat them like anything else on your rack. If you do it's your mistake, because these babies are clearly nothing like anything else on your rack.

If the idea of climbing with a piece of gear with inherent design / material limitations offends you to the point of knitting then I suggest you don't buy such gear. If you do, and then either can't recognize the design limitations, or choose to ignore them, then that's 'pilot error' every time by my definition. It's the realities of the design / materials and your expections that are out of wack. I'm simply suggesting you realign the one of those two factors you have any control over.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Climbing Gear Discussion
Post a Reply to "Broken Cam"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.