3 C4 lobe severely bent

bearbreeder wrote: dont shop at REI then ... its that simple ;)

Who said anything about shopping there, I just think your action makes you an asshole, that's all.

Moron. Since you didn't get it the first time I wrote it, I will repeat. Paying more doesn't mean they will charge more than retail or more than other shops. It means sales are less frequent and lamer, and all the community events the put on will be also.

I realize your aren't going to change your ways, an that you are aware that you are being an ass, and will continue sitting there smugly with your super lame excuses for your behavior.

reboot wrote: Who said anything about shopping there, I just think your action makes you an asshole, that's all.

thats nice to know from someone on the intrawebs ;)

if you dont shop there then dont complain about the "affects all of us" ... its not like yr paying higher prices there ...

or go ahead and do since its the intrawebs =P

Paul-B wrote:Moron. Since you didn't get it the first time I wrote it, I will repeat. Paying more doesn't mean they will charge more than retail or more than other shops. It means sales are less frequent and lamer, and all the community events the put on will be also. I realize your aren't going to change your ways, an that you are aware that you are being an ass, and will continue sitting there smugly with your super lame excuses for your behavior.

LOL ...

wow its almost like im chipping rock or "abusing women" ...

the lameness is in your hypocrisy where you go whine about people using their policy and "higher prices" ... or less sales, or less events ... whatever ... and yet you STILL SHOP THERE

go vote with your feet and dollars ... or WRITE EM and tell em what you think rather than whinning on an intranet forum

if you dont like it dont shop there ... vote with your feet ... its a capitalistic democracy ;)

bearbreeder wrote: yet no one here complains about it ... hypocrits

Moral deficiency combined with illiteracy. Impressive. I suspect that the need to use caps and name-call weakens your already weak argument.

Dave Swink wrote: Moral deficiency combined with illiteracy. Impressive. I suspect that the need to use caps and name-call weakens your already weak argument.

yr most imaginative and contributing post proves you the "superior" hombre little one ;)

go do some shopping at REI =P

bearbreeder wrote: go do some shopping at REI =P

Funny, I was on my way there for a bike pump even with your prompting, but I will say "hi" for you. :-)

Seriously, you are aware the red squiggly line under a word in the post composition box means it's probably misspelled, right?

Dave Swink wrote: Funny, I was on my way there for a bike pump even with your prompting, but I will say "hi" for you. :-)

NOOOOO ... you dont want to go there ... because of all those evil abusers youll end up "paying more"

make sure you tell em to change their policy ...

and scream at the people returning stuff ;)

bearbreeder wrote: NOOOOO ... and scream at the people returning stuff ;)

Yah, someone is screaming.

Do folks to that (go over-the-top emphatic) when they can feel inside that they are seriously wrong? This is mostly kidding about your last post. I did see the winky emoticon.

Dave Swink wrote: Yah, someone is screaming. Do folks to that (go over-the-top emphatic) when they can feel inside that they are seriously wrong? This is mostly kidding about your last post. I did see the winky emoticon.

people do get overly emotive about returning a cam ...

theres many more important things going on in the world ... even in the climbing world

wait till we start mentioning PASes ;)

first world intraweb climbing problems ...

How did this even turn into a thread about REI return/exchange ethics? Simply astounding. You guys are magicians.

Seriously though, it looks like the cam took a load with uneven distribution of force applied to the lobes. I think Ian is probably right; it probably slipped before fully engaging and rotated a bit on a crystal or some other textural inconsistency in the rock, applying a lot of torque in a direction that the lobe was not designed to withstand.

Thank your stars it held. Buy a new one, try to exchange it, whatever. Just be glad that your gear system works and learn from this experience.

Use and abuse of REI's return policy has been debated here many times. In my observation, the conversations come down to whether you believe that a behavior that is technically allowed is necessarily right from a moral perspective, or whether that even enters your decision-making process.

If you are not guided by baseline morals outside of contracts and rules, this is not the first time you have heard from people taking exception.

Obviously, I have an opinion on the subject but it doesn't bother me if yours differs.

Jon Zucco wrote: Seriously though, it looks like the cam took a load with uneven distribution of force applied to the lobes. I think Ian is probably right; it probably slipped before fully engaging and rotated a bit on a crystal or some other textural inconsistency in the rock, applying a lot of torque in a direction that the lobe was not designed to withstand.

I am not at all qualified from an engineering perspective, but the cam damage and the description of the fall sounds a lot like the issue of Link cams breaking when side-loaded. If so, it comes down to protection only working optimally when placed with consideration of the fall line, movement during a fall, and whether the rock features will allow the cam to move in a fall.

Dave Swink wrote: I am not at all qualified from an engineering perspective, but the cam damage and the description of the fall sounds a lot like the issue of Link cams breaking when side-loaded. If so, it comes down to protection only working optimally when placed with consideration of the fall line, movement during a fall, and whether the rock features will allow the cam to move in a fall.

Yeah, I think we are thinking about the same thing here. The cam moved, got caught some where but rotated somewhere else, torquing at least one lobe sideways instead of inline with the fall... Is this what you mean?

...and there goes another Co-op

Jon Zucco wrote: Yeah, I think we are thinking about the same thing here. The cam moved, got caught some where but rotated somewhere else, torquing at least one lobe sideways instead of inline with the fall... Is this what you mean?

Yah, again, I am not an expert (and there are some in this forum) but that scenario makes sense to me. I would guess this type of damage seldom happens to C4s because they will swivel into the fall line in most falls (unlike Link cams). A rock feature would have to block a C4 from turning before energy would be directed sideways against a lobe and damage it like the OP reported.

Adam Stackhouse wrote:Classic thread drift....

Isnt that the truth.....

Adam Stackhouse wrote:Classic thread drift....

Isnt that the truth.....

Garrett Harmsen wrote:Has anyone actually ever seen this happen before on such a small fall? It seems like BD should make cams more durable than 1 fall pieces.

I've seen almost exact pictures before of a #3 C4. It was maybe 1 year after they came out. Same warped look to it. A fall in IC, if I remember correctly. I think it was even this site, if you want to look for it. Lots of talk about quality of the aluminum but all conjecture per typical MP discussion.

to the OP - thanks for sharing. I've never seen a lobe deform quite like that before. I would send it in to BD to hear what they say.