Broken Cam thread

rocknice2 wrote:Every photo of a so called cam failure has been a placement failure. I can't remember the last real cam failure I've seen. CCH?

I'm not sure you totally understand why this whole issue is a discussion. I don't think anyone disagrees that the cam placement is what caused the cam(s) to break. Obviously, a perfect placement doesn't break a cam. But would you not agree that it's worth discussing when someone notices that the only time a cam has broken in their climbing circle it was the same make and model and it has happened three times?

Whether it be human error or some manufacturing glitch the point is from my experience X4 cams are more prone to breaking. The reason why is almost irrelevant.

I agree that is worth thinking about, Kris.

BUT: (and this is a HUGE but): Black Diamond cams are ridiculously popular. Small cams have millimeters between a great placement and a terrible one.

That is important because:

a) small cams are going to break sometimes. It's just a fact, and that is NOT proof of defect.

b) if Black Diamond is massively more popular than other brands (and it is), ANY breakage of cam is likely to be a Black Diamond small cam.

This doesn't necessarily imply that X4s are week: we don't have a valid statistical sample. So we have to be extremely catious trying to turn anecdotes into data.

I worry a bit about the durability of X4s, too, but "data points" like this must be viewed with extreme caution.

I have too much training in statistics to let an obviously biased sample sway me too much.

teece303 wrote: I have too much training in statistics to let an obviously biased sample sway me too much.

Fair enough.

EDIT: That is largely why I posted to see if others shared what I had noticed.

bearbreeder wrote: as to the X4s being "hard to clean" ... the grey and up may be in some cases as some of the cams had a shietty glue job on the kevlar wires ... basically the cam wouldnt retract fully even when the trigger was pulled all the way ... lately they dont seem to have that issue, so they may have fixed their QC process on it ... ;)

The whole glue-job thing was/is completely overblown. My x4's had the same problem, so I took some needle-nosed pliers and sort of massaged the glue-y part of the kevlar until it softened up. Took 5 seconds per cable, and now they retract completely. I just got a .75 the other day, and this is the first thing I did when I got it home. Took less than a minute, and it works perfectly now. I suppose I could blame BD for QC issues, but I'd rather just fix it and have great cams.

Mark Paulson wrote: The whole glue-job thing was/is completely overblown. My x4's had the same problem, so I took some needle-nosed pliers and sort of massaged the glue-y part of the kevlar until it softened up. Took 5 seconds per cable, and now they retract completely. I just got a .75 the other day, and this is the first thing I did when I got it home. Took less than a minute, and it works perfectly now. I suppose I could blame BD for QC issues, but I'd rather just fix it and have great cams.

Or they could set it properly like the mastercams which dont seem to have this issue with their kevlar wires

At the very least they could put some instructions out as not everyone is aware of the issue and it could lead to a stuck cam or two

In fact if i look back at the early MP discussion, some MPers had cleaning issues ... And not every climber comes on MP and may not be aware of it till their cam gets a bit stuck

;)

Some gear is occasionally manufactured badly as in the case of some lots of CCH Aliens.

Some gear has design / material limitations and constraints on their usage such as MaxCams and Link Cams.

Repeated or prolonged dogging on small gear will greatly increase the likelihood of damage or loss (not to mention incredibly stupid).

Small pieces, cams in particular, require [far] more exacting placement skills for them to hold a fall or if you expect to get your shit back intact (or at all) after a fall if it does hold.

The vast majority of the times small gear gets broken or becomes irretrievable is because of bad placements.

Small pro rated under 8kn by any manufacturer is generally considered an aid piece whether or not a manufacturer specifically calls out that convention or not - but that doesn't in any way rule out its use in free climbing if you know what you're doing.

All the numericality tossed about regarding belay devices, loads on top pieces, rope resting between falls, etc. is all academic noise and entirely useless in the real world beyond being vaguely curious bathroom reading. If you can't learn the distinction between truck, marginal and bad placements without your iFall app then you're basically fucked from the get go anyway.

[ Note: Falling and gear destruction history available upon request. ]

Healyje wrote: Repeated or prolonged dogging on small gear will greatly increase the likelihood of damage or loss (not to mention incredibly stupid).

fcukang stupid gumby brits ... dun dey know any bettah?

youtube.com/watch?v=IWelYnI…

as to "numbers" ... if you dont understand the effects of rope path, drag, loss of elasticity, and the belay device on the gear as a SYSTEM ... well it will bite you sooner or later

you dont need to know the exact numbers, not that there are any outside a lab ... but you darn sure better know how each part affects the whole

last year we had to carry out someone who pulled two pieces (both C4, one a #2) out of solid granite because he didnt manage the rope path/drag properly ... he shattered both ankles

but i have heard something new today ... ive never hear the blue camalot/totem get called an "aid piece" !!!

bearbreeder wrote: fcukang stupid gumby brits ... dun dey know any bettah?

I see Leo falling a lot on the Prophet in that video. What I don't see is him dogging his way up the pitch.

bearbreeder wrote:if you dont understand the effects of rope path, drag, loss of elasticity, and the belay device on the gear as a SYSTEM ... well it will bite you sooner or later

Rope path and drag, yes. "Loss of elasticity and belay device on the gear as a SYSTEM" - totally academic and, beyond knowing not to lead on a static line, essentially worthless in the real world and no one really needs to know shit about either. And I'm saying that as someone who has led above and fallen on tons of small and marginal gear over decades.

bearbreeder wrote:...last year we had to carry out someone who pulled two pieces (both C4, one a #2) out of solid granite because he didn't know what he was doing.

Fixed that for you...

teece303 wrote:I am the dissenter, I guess. While I like to look at broken cams and speculate, I don't really find these threads enlightening at all. Too often we look to blame the gear. It very rarely is. It's the rock, and it's us. If if we place gear perfectly correctly (which not even the very best will do every time), we still have no guarantees. Weird things happen in falls. Smaller cams that are mangled but that held the fall did their job. They really aren't guaranteed in any way, let alone for longevity. I do think X4s *might* be more fragile than other pieces of similar size, but we can sadly learn so little from anecdotes like this, because we don't know what happened and we never will. (When BD replaces gear, they're just being decent people: there is almost certainly nothing wrong with X4s.) But Note: we really fetishize light gear these days. Light gear will break quicker, so in a certain sense we expect this.

this right here

Healyje wrote: I see Leo falling a lot on the Prophet in that video. What I don't see is him dogging his way up the pitch. Rope path and drag, yes. "Loss of elasticity and belay device on the gear as a SYSTEM" - totally academic and, beyond knowing not to lead on a static line, essentially worthless in the real world, no one really needs to know shit about either, and I'm saying that as someone who has led above tons of small and marginal gear over decades. Fixed that for you...

bergsport.se/wp-content/upl…


6.1.3 Dynamic rope turned static
The strongest argument for an inelastic rope is the preliminary investigation’s drop test 2. The
fall factor was approximately 0.52, which is small, but the shock load was still large enough to
pull out a well-placed #2 Camalot, which means that the shock load would have been on the
order of 15 kN. As a comparison, for a new dynamic rope, the peak load on a falling 80-kg
climber for the standardized fall [13] with the large fall factor 1.77, is typically about 8 kN, or
about 15 kN on the protection. This shows that much of the elasticity of the rope was lost,
without assuming linear elasticity.
If we do assume linear elasticity, the drop test shows that elasticity of the rope corresponds to
a static elongation of at most 2.2% (theoretical analysis) and at most 1.8% (computer
simulation). Also, the third and fourth pieces of protection were apparently overloaded and
pulled out during the accident. We have collected these events, together with the consistent
maximum static elongation in Table 6-1, using both theoretical analysis and computer
simulation.
These data suggest that the originally dynamic rope had lost elasticity,and become more static.
It seems that reasonably intensive rappelling and top roping preceded the accident, which
certainly reduced the elasticity, but it is unclear if this alone explains the reduction in
elasticity. The preliminary investigation notes that “…[The belayer and climber] had
successfully belayed each other on four (possibly five) routes before the accident occurred”,
implying that they had climbed 8-10 pitches in approximately 4 hours. In this report, we
cannot answer the complex question of exactly why the rope had lost elasticity.


air guitar fatality

the impact force DOES matter ... just because it hasnt bitten you doesnt mean it never will

theres a reason why we dont take whips on static lines ... and why our ropes are dynamic

as to that gumby brit and other folks ... those climber at that level whip and hangdog all the time on their projects ... not everything gets captured on video, only the exciting parts

its very easy to rant about folks who dont know what they are doing on the intrawebs ... i mean everyone does it and it feels good...

but do consider that not everyone may be as intraweb purfect as the MP "experts", not to mention said "experts" might be wrong or outdated (GASP)

bearbreeder wrote: bergsport.se/wp-content/upl…

That report is a completely speculative - and I would argue completely wrong - analysis of Goran Kropp's death. While an accomplished adventurer / mountain climber, I personally suspect Kropp's placement skills left something to be desired, particularly in a place like the Coulee. And as a side note - mountain climbers with subpar rock skills is a far more common phenom than you might expect; I see it all the time up here in the PNW.

bearbreeder wrote:the impact force DOES matter ... just because it hasnt bitten you doesnt mean it never will

For all real world, sharp-end purposes it definitely does not if you're using conventional gear and techniques. I mean - Jeebus H. Christ - just how did anyone lead and take solid whippers on small and marginal gear before drop towers and calculators? There's clearly an empirical case to be made for the .25% of falls where impact force on the top piece due to the difference in rope specs or belay device matters a rip - if you could figure out which ones those are, which you can't, so who gives a flying fuck? It's irrelevant for all practical purposes.

bearbreeder wrote:...climbers at that level whip and hangdog all the time on their projects...

Climbers at that level know what the fuck they are doing down to a nuance and didn't get that knowledge worrying about climbing math or impact force derived from anything other than their personal trial-and-error airtime such that they have it down to a reliable intuition as to whether small or marginal gear will hold. And they're not dogging on any gear they don't know is truck. Also, dogging on gear on climbs which preclude free onsights by anyone at all is another matter altogether. Dogging on gear for normal humans on routes which do sustain onsights is beyond stupid, dangerous and also isn't trad climbing.

bearbreeder wrote:...but do consider that not everyone may be as intraweb purfect as the MP "experts", not to mention said "experts" might be wrong or outdated (GASP)

Look, on several forums you have expended pretty much more effort than anyone I've run across over the years attempting to establish a reputation as an intraweb 'expert' and with mixed results at best. There is no climbing world where your numericality, testing and endless speculation around device / rope impact loading on top pieces will ever be more than an academic exercise. On the other hand, there is nothing academic whatsoever - or which will ever be or become 'outdated' - about being runout above small and marginal placements - it's timeless. And while I get the interest and intellectual curiosity, spewing the majority of that quantitative shit to people learning to lead trad is almost entirely counterproductive outside of teaching common sense rope path design and slinging (which requires no math at all).

Bottom line: leading over small and marginal gear is a highly qualitative, not quantitative, exercise.

Healyje wrote: I would hazard a guess that report is a completely speculative - and I would argue completely wrong - analysis of Goran Kropp's death. While an accomplished adventurer / mountain climber, I personally suspect Kropp's placement skills left something to be desired, particularly in a place like the Coulee. And as a side note - mountain climbers with subpar rock skills is a far more common phenom than you might expect; I see it all the time up here in the PNW. For all real world, sharp-end purposes it definitely does not if you're using conventional gear and techniques. I mean - Jeebus H. Christ - just how did anyone lead and take solid whippers on small and marginal gear before drop towers and calculators? There's clearly an empirical case to be made for the .25% of falls where impact force on the top piece due to the difference in rope specs or belay device matters a rip - if you could figure out which ones those are, which you can't, so who gives a flying fuck? It's irrelevant for all practical purposes. Climbers at that level know what the fuck they are doing down to a nuance and didn't get that knowledge worrying about climbing math or impact force derived from anything other than their personal trial-and-error experience such that they have it down to a reliable intuition as to whether small or marginal gear will hold. And they're not dogging on any gear they don't know is truck and dogging on gear on climbs which preclude free onsights by anyone is another matter altogether. Dogging on gear for normal humans on routes which do sustain onsights is beyond stupid and also isn't trad climbing. Look, on several forums you have expended pretty much more effort than anyone I've run across over the years attempting to establish a reputation as an intraweb 'expert' and with mixed results at best. There is no climbing world where your numericality, testing and endless speculation around device / rope impact loading on top pieces will ever be more than an academic exercise. On the other hand, there is nothing academic whatsoever - or which will ever be or become 'outdated' - about being runout above small and marginal placements - it's timeless. And while I get the interest and intellectual curiosity, spewing the majority of that quantitative shit to people learning to lead trad is almost entirely counterproductive outside of teaching common sense rope path design and slinging (which requires no math at all). Bottom line: leading over small and marginal gear is a qualitative, not quantitative exercise.

there is NO "numerical superiority"

its pretty darn simple actually

- less bends in the rope ... the lower the ACTUAL fall factor ... less force on the top runner

- less drag against the rock ... less force on the top runer

- a lower impact force rope ... less force on the top runner

- a tube style device ... less force on the top runner ... this matters more when the path is straight and the drag minimal

- the straighter you keep the rope the less yr pieces will walk or see outward forces ... if you dont you may well get sequential gear failure

- the straighter the rope, the more the belayer will feel the pull of the fall ... the less the force on the top piece if the belayer is dynamic

- if the belayer doesnt feel the catch, you are depending on basically rope stretch ALONE to mitigate the fall

you can place the "best"individual small gear in the world over and over again ... but if you dont understand how it all behaves as a system ... it might not do you much good

these basic principles are NOT well understood even among some experienced climbers, never mind new ones

numbers merely illustrate lab examples of the increases ... of course you can never truly quantify the exact numbers in the field ... but they serve as a warning of what can happen

all these can be confirmed with NUMBERS as general examples

of course one SHOULD go out and take those whippers on "aid" gear ...

DMM gray brass offset

to say it doesnt matter is just to ignore the research that has been done since the "good old days"


heres some numbers .. dont huff and puff !!!

Classic belay versus Autolock belay
• Force on the last runner increases with Autolock
–Very large increase with low friction, examples 1 & 2
–Small increase with hard friction examples 3 & 4
• Autolock can easily give >12 kN on the last runner
– you must have safe protection

BMC Technical Conference 2006

BMC Technical Conference 2006

Forces in different situations
UIAA impact force of the rope
• Look at forces on the last runner
–10 kN UIAA rope & 7.2 kN UIAA rope
–10 kN UIAA rope
• Impact force is 35% higher than with 7.2 kN UIAA rope
• Increase is independent of belay device type
• Remember
–UIAA impact force of rope has big influence on
forces at the runners when dynamic belaying

BMC Technical Conference 2006

in the old days they used hip belays for high factor falls ... that seems to be no longer recommended practice either for some reason ...

as to "experts" ... folks should go do their own research and take their own whippers ... you should NEVER believe things you read on an intraweb forums, especially without some reference ... including yours truly, which is why i post those "numbers"

whether its more helpful than someone who comes and says "its all yr fault, nothings wrong, move on" ... well thats for the intrawebz to decide

;)

bearbreeder wrote:There is NO "numerical superiority" its pretty darn simple actually

Exactly.

bearbreeder wrote:Less bends in the rope ... the lower the ACTUAL fall factor ... less force on the top runner | Less drag against the rock ... less force on the top runner - a lower impact force rope ... less force on the top runner | A tube style device ... less force on the top runner ... this matters more when the path is straight and the drag minimal | The straighter you keep the rope the less yr pieces will walk or see outward forces ... if you dont you may well get sequential gear failure | The straighter the rope, the more the belayer will feel the pull of the fall ... the less the force on the top piece if the belayer is dynamic | If the belayer doesn't feel the catch, you are depending on basically rope stretch ALONE to mitigate the fall

By and large the one I've bolded is really the only one a trad leader needs to concern themselves with 99.5% of the time. I personally wouldn't use an autoblocking device trad climbing and most folks out trad climbing should just lock that puppy up in a fall and not worry about getting all dynamic.

bearbreeder wrote:You can place the "best"individual small gear in the world over and over again ... but if you dont understand how it all behaves as a system ... it might not do you much good

Agreed, as a leader you're building a bottom-to-top system with your placements and slinging that has to be performant relative to drag and pieces staying put in their placements.

bearbreeder wrote:These basic principles are NOT well understood even among some experienced climbers, never mind new ones.

Well, to that I'd say that when the first sport climb and gym were put up there was a ready-made market waiting them. When there was only trad climbing only about 5-10% were what I'd call artisans with gear placements; another 40% were competent; and the rest were nervous. Trad climbing also sorted the wheat from the chaff pretty damn quickly with the majority of folks who tried climbing beating a hasty retreat from it as a result. In trad climbing in particular, "experienced" doesn't in any way automagically translate to "competent".

bearbreeder wrote:Numbers merely illustrate lab examples of the increases ... of course you can never truly quantify the exact numbers in the field...

Aside from the fact you can't quantify any numbers at all on lead, those percentage increases are also irrelevant once you leave the ground and are making decisions and getting the best gear you can and taking your chances above it. I have a hard time believing Leo or Tommy & Kevin were 'resting' their ropes, switching ends, alternating ropes, or worried about dynamic catches or impact forces on their top pieces. If anything, as a leader, I explicitly am not interested about any of that shit once I leave the ground.

bearbreeder wrote:To say it doesnt matter is just to ignore the research that has been done since the "good old days".

Again, ignoring that research is exactly what I would and do counsel. The largely 'Edisonian' experience of leading, and in particular leading above small and marginal gear, is in no way usefully informed by that abstract 'research'. It's useful for rope design and manufacturing and for making rough statements of strength of gear used for protection - but if you're thinking about any of that shit while leading you're either deranged or moving at the pace of a very worried snail.

bearbreeder wrote:Here's some numbers .. dont huff and puff!!!: Forces in different situations - Classic belay versus Autolock belay

Pretty simple, don't use an autoblocker if you're worried about it. But overall, for most trad leaders, this doesn't even rise to the level of a minor concern compared to all the other risk factors involved. Bad / distracted belaying, not being on the same page, ineffective communication, and lack of an 'eye' able to map lines to skills are so much more significant risks that small percentage impact force increases don't even register as an issue.

bearbreeder wrote:In the old days they used hip belays for high factor falls ... that seems to be no longer recommended practice either for some reason

Funny, I just spent less than five minutes showing a new partner how to effectively hip belay lead falls. And like everything else, even back in the day most folks were utterly clueless about how to effectively hip belay for solid falls on multipitch routes. I've held lots of big and hard falls hip belaying on single and multipitch climbs and it can be done just as reliably and effectively today as any device and as a side bonus it discourages dogging (which, along with the general competency issue, has far more to do with why it fell out of practice than anything else).

bearbreeder wrote:As to "experts" ... folks should go do their own research and take their own whippers ... you should NEVER believe things you read on an intraweb forums, especially without some reference ... including yours truly, which is why i post those "numbers" whether its more helpful than someone who comes and says "its all yr fault, nothings wrong, move on" ... well thats for the intrawebz to decide ;)

Yes, people should think and learn for themselves. But again, the 'research' is actually counterproductive in my opinion as percentage increases in impact forces are by far the least of the risks facing a trad leader when they leave the ground.

well we can argue round and round ...

basically we agree on the issue, but disagree on the way to approach it

to put it simply

if i tell someone ... if you are climbing trad and using a maxim (~10 KN) rope and a grigri, vs a beal (~7 KN) rope and an ATC ... you may well see TWICE the force on the top runner (as an example look at the table i posted below)

double da force, double da phun ... in theory !!!

IME ... it sure works better to reinforce the point than to say "grigri BAAD !!!" ... especially as theres puuurtay pictures =P

you can dispute the actual numbers of course as it aint in a lab ... but as a general rule of thumb using a grigri and a higher impact rope will increase the force on the top runner ... its simply a matter of whether its enough to make a difference

as to "risks" ... you can do everything "right", be "safe" and "competent" and still die tmr

and you can be "sketchy", totally "unsafe" and climb just fine and unhurt for years or decades

the small things add up ... its a matter of probabilities and chance as to whether itll affect you ... but you can reduce that risk, never eliminate it

ive never been in an accident where i needed the airbag to deploy, .... doesnt mean we should get rid of airbags though, even though they never needed them in the "old days"

time to breeed some beahs !!!

;)

nicelegs wrote: Anyway, lets talk about Honda Civics and the inexplicable "Furious" franchise. Person A, lets call him Calvin Lockeus, has a 1992 Honda Civic that is still running with 320K miles on it and he's only ever had to change the oil and buy new tires. He's never seen the Furious series and wears his ballcap straight. Person B, lets call his Douchey McVinDouche, has 12 Honda Civics from 1997-2009, all with blown engines, slipping transmissions, and wrecked suspensions. Douchey spends every moment he isn't getting tattoo's racing his Civics and has since the first Furious movie came out. Douchey and Calvin run into each other in line to buy wallet chains at Hot Topic. They start talking about cars. Douchey mentions that he doesn't think Honda Civics are reliable at all. Calvin says he thinks they are. Who is right? (Hint, they both are in the proper context).

The 92 Civic is definitely more reliable than the 2009, though Calvin had really go and get that timing belt replaced, being an interference motor, surprised it's lasted 23 years and that many miles..

In all honesty the up until the last year, 2005, when civics had D-series single cam engines, (B-series were pretty bomb proof as well, just needed to keep those valves adjusted) there really weren't too many problems with the civics, few head gaskets here and there, nothing major. The 2001-05's did have some front strut issues, going to McPherson strut assemblies definitely caused some issues.

But 2006-2009, damn, porous engine blocks that leak coolant right out the side of them, drive belt tensioner bolts snapping off in blocks, water pump pulley bolts shearing off. A lot more issues on those things. Not to mention eating through rear tires due to the rear upper control arms being designed a bit off, though the corrected arms fixed that issue, except in those hybrids, they just have too much damn weight in the back with those batteries...

Anyway, to answer the question, newer Hondas aren't as reliable as the Hondas of old, though they are still the most reliable out there.

KrisFiore wrote: I'm not sure you totally understand why this whole issue is a discussion. I don't think anyone disagrees that the cam placement is what caused the cam(s) to break. Obviously, a perfect placement doesn't break a cam. But would you not agree that it's worth discussing when someone notices that the only time a cam has broken in their climbing circle it was the same make and model and it has happened three times? Whether it be human error or some manufacturing glitch the point is from my experience X4 cams are more prone to breaking. The reason why is almost irrelevant.

I do understand. Like I said the blue X4 was placement failure and any other cam placed badly will also fail or get severely damaged. So now there are only two cams in question and neither are broken. They have succumb to design restriction.

The grey X4, you say "is crushed", is a poor selection of words. I don't see any 'crushing'. What I speculate (from the bad photos) is a burr at the edge of one of the lobes. Since the lobes are very close together and intersect greatly when fully open. It lends me to believe the burred lobe is the problem. The burr is interfering with it's counterpart and is being restricted. Specifically on the grey .4 and purple .5 which have a very tight gap. So is this a design flaw or the price of a narrow double axle cam? BTW you can file off the burr and return it to a fully functioning cam.
--- Invalid image id: 110292268 --- --- Invalid image id: 110292263 ---

Definitely a burr on the X4 lobes will interfere with the operation of the cam more so than another cam. As you can see in this photo of a Metolius Mastcam. The space between the cams is greater and because of it's single axle design there is no overlap of the lobe working area. Except a tiny amount at the cam stops. Which indecently is an issue with the Mastercams.


Ever consider that everything is a trade off. The C4's are a true workhorse of a cam. Now everyone expects the X4 to be that same workhorse. Might not be possible. Might be like comparing a stock 400+ cubic inch Detroit muscle car to a N2O breathing 2 liter Japanese import. Which engine will live longer?

There is also a known kinking issue with the X4 stem cable at the long swag at the base/head. When placed in a shallow horizontal crack and loaded cable makes a severe bend at the connection point. Actually any cam will kink when bent at the connection but with the X4's that connection is farther from the head. Could they use a shorter swag? IMPO a connection like the one on the Mastercam is a better design. Yet again BD went this way perhaps to achieve a more reliable connection. Who knows? Maybe one day a company will come around and design a high performance cam that everyone will be happy with.

What I do find troubling is, where the damage is on the grey X4 lobe. Pretty much past the point considered a bomber placement. A grey Alien or an orange Mastercam would be a better choice in that range.

There's a lot of mediocre, overweight, middle-aged climbers out there who like to talk out of their ass...oh wait, I might be one of those too.

Locker wrote:^^^ Are you done with your IRONING yet? I have one or two more loads to go.

Yup, the loads keep coming all right!

Gotta love the MP thread drift. If you really wanna talk about gear, lets talk about how all who've climbed more than 15 years still have all of our old cams from 20+ years ago and they all work perfectly and the cam grooves are all still totally in place and everything is still completely functional, while all of our new stuff from the last 3-5 years seems to have an expiration date. My brother in law who climbs basically every minute that he's not working, i.e. a lot, replaces all of his cams every year to two years. By the time he's replacing them I can say with certainty that the cams are "smaller" (grooves completely worn down to nothing with a lot of material having worn off the contact area of the cam).

We love our lighter gear, but man the stuff wears out incredibly fast. Don't even get me started on 9mm ropes.

Colonel Mustard - I've not had any more issues with removing X4s than any other small cam. Personally I find master cams a bitch to remove in many circumstances. Funny enough I've also got a friend I sometimes climb with who can't seem to remove x4s if his life depended on it. On more than one occasion he's given up only to have me remove it in about 2 seconds.

25 Years
6th rack

Solid stem friends
Flex Friends + Metolius 4cu
HB Quads + Metolius 4cu + TCU
BD C4 gen1 + HB Quads + C3 + TCU
BD C4 gen2&1 + C3 + Aliens + MC
BD C4 gen2 doubles + C3 + X4 + Aliens