|
grant N
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Sep 2011
· Points: 1
I know that they used to have half sizes for C4s like a 3.5 and I believe offsets as well. Does a knowledgeable or wise experienced climber know why they stopped making them. ?Also, I know they have offset X4s. Does anyone know, why they do not have offset C4s?
|
|
Caz Drach
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
C'Wood, UT
· Joined Jun 2013
· Points: 310
If i hazard to guess... the reasoning behind not having offset C4s (atleast in larger sizes) is due to the range the larger cams can cover and being dual axle the lobes from one side to the next can work semi independent of each other...meaning it can be a tapered placement and still be ok due to the range the cam covers also based on the assumption the cam is placed within its working range. my 0.02
|
|
FrankPS
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
Atascadero, CA
· Joined Nov 2009
· Points: 276
You could call Black Diamond and ask them.
|
|
Greg D
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
Here
· Joined Apr 2006
· Points: 883
I think it was a production / financial decision. Before C4's they had a 3.4, 4, 4.5, and a 5. When C4's came out they stopped production of the 3.5 and 4.5. Made the 4 smaller. Made the 5 smaller. And introduced the 6. So now they can cover a much larger range with fewer pieces, although not nearly as well as they used to. If you climb a wide crack that increases in size slowly you may find the overlap to be inadequate. That's why when 3.5's and 4.5's come up for sale they disappear quickly.
|
|
Gunks Jesse
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
Shawangunk Township, NY
· Joined May 2014
· Points: 111
There are many people far more knowledgable than me that frequent MP, but I can add with certainty that when moving from Camalots to C4s BD did not simply rename the cams. The ranges covered changed. Thus, people climbing specific desert splitters covet the 3.5 and 4.5 because they fit in between the size range of the current C4 3 and 4, and 4 and 5, respectively. There are several charts that can easily be found on the intrawebs showing the range differences between Camalots and C4s.
|
|
Jon Frisby
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Feb 2013
· Points: 290
They make offset X4s in .4/.5 and .5/.75, which are both double axled
|
|
grant N
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
Unknown Hometown
· Joined Sep 2011
· Points: 1
Yes but I cant stand that horrible metolious wannabe action of the X4s
|
|
Linnaeus
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
ID
· Joined Aug 2011
· Points: 0
There was a video a couple years ago, I think a screen shot was posted here on MP, where a BD athlete was using a 0.5/.075 C4 offset.
|
|
Jason Todd
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
Cody, WY
· Joined Apr 2012
· Points: 1,114
The old 4.5 is within a millimeter or two of the size as the new C4 #5. For all practical purposes the ranges are the same, but the C4 is lighter.
|
|
Matt Kuehl
·
Apr 22, 2016
·
Las Vegas
· Joined Nov 2010
· Points: 1,712
I would guess they didn't pursue offset C4's because they wouldn't be very useful with such a broad cam width and stiff stem. Generally you want your offsets to fit narrow and irregular pods and have a flexible stem so that head doesn't shift when weighted. Probably why they waited to make them in the X4. But, I have dreamed of BD making an offset #5/#6 C4 for some of those heinous flaring wide cracks in the Voo. Sure it will never happen because it is also a ridiculous idea with extremely limited usefulness.
|
|
Linnaeus
·
Apr 23, 2016
·
ID
· Joined Aug 2011
· Points: 0
A bit tangential, but how does a WC #4 compare with the old BD #3.5? I thought those were pretty similar in size, might be a good option for those looking for that size. Or at least that's why I keep my WC #4 tech friend around still.
|
|
Greg Gavin
·
Apr 23, 2016
·
SLC, UT
· Joined Oct 2008
· Points: 888
The 3.5 camalot and 4 friend cover a nearly identical range.
|
|
reboot
·
Apr 23, 2016
·
.
· Joined Jul 2006
· Points: 125
As have already been said, the old 3.5 can be substituted w/ a 4 friend, the old 4.5 w/ a new 5. IMHO, both replacements are lighter & arguably better. That leaves the old 4 & the old 5. I'm not going to say they don't have a use, as I don't climb that much OW, but honestly, because of their shorter axles (compared to C4 or the WC offerings) & consequently torsion instability, I never feel very comfortable w/ either piece in the wider end of the expansion range. So yes, the old 4 is bigger than the new 4, but the effective size difference is very marginal (less than the spec & w/ a pretty large weight penalty), IMO. The only thing being, for the average male, the middle range of the old 4 & the old 5 are kind of hard sizes, so it's nice to have pieces in their optimal ranges w/ a consistent width crack.
|