Query for objective info on Omega Link Cams

impact energy becomes a big player if the placement isn't perfect, I am sure you understand all of that... If not we can discuss elsewhere.

I'll save the powder met discussion for later too. It doesn't compare to forging though.

Don't want to completely hijack the thread... Sorry still a little off topic.

You mean CCH has a quality department? Who would have thunk it, they keep having failures, they don't know what heat treatment they use, etc. Great design though just like the OP LCs.

I only remember two on RC.com then they got cross posted all over, then the one I saw on my last trip to AR. So three I think. Could be more though that didn't get posted like the AR one which I didn't remember seeing. But one thought is if you are sending it in or planing on a legal complaint you may not be allowed to go public, anybody know anything about that?

Did a bit of digging on RC and the only incidents I found were the broken lobe at Intersection Rock in JTree (link) and the unpeened link rivet (link).

Looking at OP's site there was also an issue with the axle nut not being peened correctly (link), which I recall seeing but did not come up in my RC search.

(thread drift)
Luke- the context I was looking at powder met was for near net shape forming of nonstructural parts, for which it was being pitched as a cheaper alternative to forging and subsequent finish machining.
(/thread drift)

Oh well. Unsaid goal 2 failed. Is it possible to use an online forum to gather useful information? There is so much noise not that i do not believe someone checking the thread will see anything more than alien and link bashing. Anyway, I will close this one out with a final note:

First off, the population in this study is too small and, the one or two failures reported were not by the owners. No conclusions can be drawn.

Next. Everything can fail. The question is whether something you use will fail when you use it for what it was designed for. Other cams fail too -not just aliens and links. So do wires, biners etc. After 19 years I have seen a few of my own pieces fail. So what is an acceptable failure rate? How much responsibility can be placed on a manufacturer who cannot inspect the cam before each use and guarantee it was used properly?

Andrew -when you go back to Univeristy of Missouri, Rolla I recommend you study factors of safety. Also you might think on how statistics and Griffith crack theory can be used in damage tolerant design. Since you know this stuff so well maybe you could do an FEA model for a cam and tell us about stress distributions and the factors of safety w.r.t. material strength, cam lobe thickness, axle, location of holes in the lobes etc -remember to validate your model. Let us know how strain rate sensitivity influences different metals particularly steel axles and pins and whether the present geometries are sufficiently over-designed. Tell us how is it that braided wire can be stronger than a solid machined piece -back to Griffith -and whether the braid is suitably designed for the cam. Perhaps you should also read J.E. Gordon's "New Science of Strong Materials or Why You Don't Fall Through The Floor". Maybe this will help you with your airplane paranoia. Also some time with the science will help as well.

Another funny thing about an online community is that there are so many geniuses out there that know more than the rest of us and want to take away our voice.

On that, my end of this thread is closed.

Oh well. Unsaid goal 2 failed. Is it possible to use an online forum to gather useful information? There is so much noise not that i do not believe someone checking the thread will see anything more than alien and link bashing. Anyway, I will close this one out with a final note:

First off, the population in this study is too small and, the one or two failures reported were not by the owners. No conclusions can be drawn.

Next. Everything can fail. The question is whether something you use will fail when you use it for what it was designed for. Other cams fail too -not just aliens and links. So do wires, biners etc. After 19 years I have seen a few of my own pieces fail. So what is an acceptable failure rate? How much responsibility can be placed on a manufacturer who cannot inspect the cam before each use and guarantee it was used properly?

Andrew -when you go back to Univeristy of Missouri, Rolla I recommend you study factors of safety. Also you might think on how statistics and Griffith crack theory can be used in damage tolerant design. Since you know this stuff so well maybe you could do an FEA model for a cam and tell us about stress distributions and the factors of safety w.r.t. material strength, cam lobe thickness, axle, location of holes in the lobes etc -remember to validate your model. Let us know how strain rate sensitivity influences different metals particularly steel axles and pins and whether the present geometries are sufficiently over-designed. Tell us how is it that braided wire can be stronger than a solid machined piece -back to Griffith -and whether the braid is suitably designed for the cam. Perhaps you should also read J.E. Gordon's "New Science of Strong Materials or Why You Don't Fall Through The Floor". Maybe this will help you with your airplane paranoia. Also some time with the science will help as well.

Another funny thing about an online community is that there are so many geniuses out there that know more than the rest of us and want to take away our voice.

On that, my end of this thread is closed.

Good job, you double posted!

Oh and we are the Missouri University of Science and Technology.

Sorry to burst you bubble too but I am a metallurgist don't do your fancy modeling, safety factors, etc. Consult a ME. Also fracture mechanics is normally a ME course. But I can tell you some of the other stuff PM me if ya want to talk.

I can give you some resources for additional learning, ya want powder met parts, or maybe fatigue of aluminum, or single crystal turbine blades, or some info on why we can draw a steel wire to be a higher strength, just let me know

I was nice in my other posts what hit your soft spot?

Aric, yeah you are right on those aspects of powder met

Nothing soft at all. Just be mindful that there is a whole world outside of your current focus. Learn a little and give others an opportunity to learn as well. I have no doubt you are smarter than I am but I have to say that you effectively steered this away from the point far enough that it will likely not return.

btw I am an ME with 12 years experience in the materials realm -PM and diamond mostly. That being said I will not claim expert status on anything at present. I have only met a very small handful of people around the world that are -experts that is. What I will claim is an understanding that all materials and structures can fail and statistics can lead to a better understanding of how we interact with the things we make and use.

Enjoy Missouri University of Science and Technology -I was jerking your chain. I work with several of your Alumni most graduated from UM, Rolla 1 grad from MU of Science & Tech. It is a good school.

Let me revise my last post to conform to the "don't be a jerk" rule.

I am quickly coming to the conclusion that online is not the way to go for anything but a scan of public opinion. Unfortunately that was one of my questions going in and I had a strong suspicion that online was no bueno. Saying this is no ding on anyone out there.

I must also say that Andrew is a really bright kid and I mean no disrespect he is obviously passionate about metallurgy and is in one of the best schools in the US for the discipline. I was a little disappointed on how quickly we got off topic and am afraid some of the blood my my disappointment bled onto the last post.

The event that sparked my curiosity was a discussion with a gear rep who told me about some unfavorable destructive testing on link cams. Not knowing the variables in the test I was suspicious but curios. The question that came to my mind is whether or not there exist instances of failure that would support my friend's statement. Hence the post.

Anyway, there is no blame or judgement for my desire to end the study. Only a realization of how flawed the data collection will be if it continues at all.

I will add that the link cam is innovative and has held by fat ass in some serious falls. In 1 case on placements that I don't think I could get any other cam it. I will also say that I have fallen on every cam sold short of rock empire and find them all to be pretty damn good. I have retired 3 cams 2 following falls that severely damaged lobes and one for a kinked cable. I have 25 cams that are more than 15 years old. I have owned 41 cams if you count my big bros. You could see this as only 7% of my cams have been retired in 19 years. Pretty good. I consider this longevity to be a testament to Ray Jardene's design and gear manufacturer's capability. My links are on their 3rd year. I inspect these and all my cams after each use. I replace nylon every 3-5 years depending on damage. More than anything, I think this has kept me from decking.

I will most likely buy the .5 and .75. I skipped #1 because the #2 covers most of its range.

Anyway, thanks for the help hope I did not offend.

Jason Wiggins wrote:I will also say that I have fallen on every cam sold short of rock empire and find them all to be pretty damn good.

I think this is kind of the bottom line. On a broad level we don't see climbing gear failing under normal use. Everybody has to believe in something. As climbers, we believe in UIAA and CE certs as a testament of the ability of a piece of gear to perform as it is supposed to.

And, when we do see failures(aliens, link cams, etc.) it is due to some sort of oversight in the production or flaw in the materials. Thus, these failures actually support the worthiness of all designs out there because a change in the design leads to failure.

So, to me, the true test of how good a piece of gear is is it's user friendliness: How well it places, how easy it is to handle, how easy it is to size the gear for the crack. So, by that standard, the link is probably one of the safest.

I think a bad accident due to fumbling around with my gear and not getting a good piece in is much more plausible that a bad accident due to failure of gear, even if every single one of my cams was a recalled one.

It's kind of like the post demanding a "true test" of mastercams by falling on them. To me, that test is irrelevant, because all gear is tested at crags arounf the world on a daily basis by people as well as very smart engineers that did all the testing before the piece went t market.

Just my 2 cents
Evan

rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/fo…;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;page=unread#unread

Hey Andrew, thanks for posting. I've been thinking about getting the two smallest sizes. I have and use the 1 and 2 regularly, I Guess I should wait to see how this pans out.

How's living in your new location going?

Robert,

Remember, the same issue exists with the larger sizes too, watch your placements. I feel that any unusual torquing or non normal cam placements can cause this. Although they may seem designed for unusual placements based on the expansion range I would still only place them where I would place a normal cam.

I have #1 and #0.5 Link Cams.

I've taken something like a FF0.8 fall on the 0.5 when it was placed in a horizontal, and it came out fine apart from the stem being a little bent.

I usually place my BD's first and save the LCs for the crux.

I have doubles of all of them

line of Links :)
Fallen on all four sizes , horizontal and vertical placements. All of them held. No damage as far as I can tell.

Robert,
My favorite sizes are the purple and green. perfect tweener pieces if you've got C4's. Great cams in their own right.

Don't own them personally, but two of my longtime partners do, so I climb with them very often. While I have been climbing with them, both have had trigger wires break and trigger wire pins fall out (pre-recall). One lobe pin fell out rendering the cam useless. None broke in falls. All problems did not affect integrity while placed.

My overall opinion: great panic pieces or to double / triple up on a size, but don't buy a whole rack of them.

Jordan Ramey wrote: ...but don't buy a whole rack of them.

:) Too Late! Haha.