Older BD cams safe?

is it safe to use older BD cams(U-stem)?

No way. You will die.

Seriously,

If they pass a visual inspection they are fine.

Yer gunna die.

Actually, I've heard several stories from people I trust about the old u stems failing in placements. I won't use them. And really, if you or a partner still has some, time to upgrade anyway.

Does failing below their rated strength worry you? Because it worries me. I don't like using them (the U-stem ones). See the bottom of the first page of this thread for pictures and a pull test by Aric Datesman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AsExl8t86kw

The old u-stem camalots, which ran from the current #1 size and up, are, IMO quite sketchy. They have a terrible propensity for cracking where the cable goes through the two little axle bosses. You can generally see the crack.

There is also the u-stem .5 and .75 (Camalot Jr). I have two of these and have fallen on them. I don't know the history of the one tested in the video. They certainly are not built as well as the modern C4's.

There are two problems to look for.

Note that these are both the original Chouinard Camalots. At least both problems are quite visible.

Ugh, hate the old U-stem Camalots. I have two of them still. I think it's time for destructive testing. The floppy plastic triggers on the end of wobbly wires is the worst.

don't dis my favorite gear, just kidding

How do the old cams compare to the new ones made in China?

Is there really enough quality control over there to be sure that they are using certified metal?

Are greedy business men are playing with our lives?

I hope the new cams do not perform like the new shoes made in China.

don't fall

I took a few wips on my old U cabled BD cams and they held just fine. Placements can pull, but that is usually a function of it being a poor placement and not a cam failure.

Inspect them as mentioned before. If they are in functional order they will work fine.

PT

paintrain wrote:I took a few wips on my old U cabled BD cams and they held just fine. Placements can pull, but that is usually a function of it being a poor placement and not a cam failure. Inspect them as mentioned before. If they are in functional order they will work fine. PT

The video shows them holding 9kn which is fine for lots of falls but not bomber which should be expected for a green camalot. It has nothing to do with the placement in this case; it is a pull test. Did you even look at the video from the other thread?

Kent Pease wrote:There are two problems to look for. Note that these are both the original Chouinard Camalots. At least both problems are quite visible.

Great detailed pics, thanks for the tip. My only original is still in mint condition so I do trust it completely.

brian benedon wrote:don't dis my favorite gear, just kidding How do the old cams compare to the new ones made in China? Is there really enough quality control over there to be sure that they are using certified metal? Are greedy business men are playing with our lives? I hope the new cams do not perform like the new shoes made in China. don't fall

C Blank wrote:

^ +1 Topic beaten to death 6x over...

BD = Good To Go

David Appelhans wrote: The video shows them holding 9kn which is fine for lots of falls but not bomber which should be expected for a green camalot. It has nothing to do with the placement in this case; it is a pull test. Did you even look at the video from the other thread?

Regarding the video, my brain doesn't readily convert lbs to Kn. I had to track through the thread to find it. In the video, he tested used cams and it took nearly 60 seconds at high load to fail and then this only happened when placed past the 50% open mark (according to the author). Was he using the UIAA 125/EN12276 test method or was he just pulling them? That wasn't clear to me, so a little hard to question a comparison of strength ratings stamped onto the cam and his test.

"Bomber" is subjective. From what I have found, UIAA thinks >5Kn is bomber for Cams. The current 0.3 camelot is only rated to 8Kn, similar sizes in TCU 8-10Kn. Should those be taken off the market? Its everyone's armchair opinion on this one. Frankly, that video just makes me more confident in using my old green U stemmed camalots. I would still use them.

Pt

mattm wrote: ^ +1 Topic beaten to death 6x over... BD = Good To Go

Exactly. Unless, of course, those cases where BD is NOT Good To Go. Which is the case with the U-Stem ones. Significant design issue with them, but as mentioned, that horse has been beaten to death. Short version: they won't hold anywhere near rating above 50% expansion due to the dimples in the slots made necessary for assembly (I've got video and loading charts to back it up). Good luck getting BD to admit this though, and I had more than one unpleasant discussion with them over this.

Back to the question i asked earlier - was the method used in your video the same as what is required by UIAA testing.

If not, you have changed the testing parameters and can't really claim it is not meeting the advertised spec.

Like I said, i am even more confident in my old U stems now. 60 seconds with >1500lbs prior to failure. When is a cam going to experience that?

Pt

Btw. I missed all the prior dead horse beating.

That video actually inspires confidence in the older cams. A failure above 8kN is acceptable to me. Many pieces on my rack have ratings below this. Also, it is difficult to achieve forces above 7kN in a lead fall when using atc like devices especially if you place early and often when leading. I'll whip onto old camalots all day and I weigh 200+. Maybe I'll make a youtube video some day.

paintrain wrote:Back to the question i asked earlier - was the method used in your video the same as what is required by UIAA testing.

Yes.

hmmm,
so the Chinese Camalots are safer than 'merican made?

where's that old thread?