This is safe, right?
|
Spotted this on someone's rack in jtree and had to snap a pic. #1 C4 with a hair pin for trigger wire. Seems legit.. |
|
If it's stupid and it works then it's not stupid |
|
Looks good from here. |
|
You are correct, this is safe. |
|
To be honest I just found it entertaining and thought I'd share. The lobe did look a little tweaked though. |
|
If the wire is preventing/interfering with the cam lobe from expanding, ie holding it closed then no, I don't think it is safe. Unless it is only placed in cracks that cause it to be cammed well past the point where the trigger wire is holding it closed. |
|
Absolutely not, they should have used a safety pin obviously |
|
Haha^. Thanks for the comment Csproul |
|
The only thing I see that's unsafe is that hex. Commence old man comments. |
|
Bad. |
|
You are losing expansion range but as long as your placement is smaller than that level it should be fine (besides you only need the other 2 cams to hold right?) |
|
Bill Lawry wrote:When the trigger is released, I doubt the designed cam angle will be as naturally preserved for that pair - math wizards out there may want to second check me.Wrong. The cam angle has nothing to do with the triggers. |
|
No. The came angle is dependent on how well centered the axle(s) is (are) between the inside faces of the crack. During release of the trigger, Uncentered-ness is promoted when one lobe contacts well before the other as in the case of this patch job. |
|
Steven Groetken wrote:The only thing I see that's unsafe is that hex. Commence old man comments.That's not just any old hex, that's a torque nut, those things are da bomb. Hexes for the every man. |
|
Well, as mentioned, a trigger wire that interferes with the deployment of the lobes could affect cam performance if it prevents the lobes from opening to the crack width. But that trigger is affecting only the first 15-20% of retraction. Since 50-90% retraction is more ideal for initial placement that repair will not affect most good placements. |
|
Bill Lawry wrote:No. The came angle is dependent on how well centered the axle(s) is (are) between the inside faces of the crack. During release of the trigger, Uncentered-ness is promoted when one lobe contacts well before the other as in the case of this patch job.Please explain this new found theory of yours which contradicts the very principles of a logarithmic spiral. |
|
Not a theory. Just geometry. The designed cam angle can not be symmetrically preserved if the axle(s) is(are) not centered between the inner faces of the crack. |
|
Bill Lawry wrote:Not a theory. Just geometry. The designed cam angle can not be symmetrically preserved if the axle(s) is(are) not centered between the inner faces of the crack. Are you of the view that the cam angle is symmetrically preserved even when not centered? Am just trying to understand exactly where our views differ before going into more detail. I'd rather not spend time arguing a specific point that we agree upon.What? The cam angle will be the same regardless of how centered the axle is in the crack. A cam lobe is a logarithmic spiral which means that the cam sngle is constant throughout the range. The only thing that not having the axle centered will do is make it so that one lobe is more cammed than the other which doesn't affect the camming angle in any way. |
|
Geometry, physics, and engineering aside, it beats the shit out of not placing it at all becasuse it is left in your car or pack as broken. |
|
Bill Lawry wrote:Are you of the view that the cam angle is symmetrically preserved even when not centered?Yes. Certainly for single axles. With double axles there are more degrees of freedom so I won't say with certainty that the effective contact angle doesn't change slightly. By definition the actual cam angle cannot change. |
|
Ok - I understand ... we have different views about whether centeredness matters regarding the designed cam angle. |