Let's talk about cam placements

john strand wrote:Lower down it that placement ,,maybe..put in 2 pieces and see which works better. i find the idea of passive placed cams silly

Are you seriously calling this a "passive placed cam"?

Regarding cam strength and potential for failure. The ultimate strength of a well placed cam is normally in the wire not the lobes or axle(s).

So placing small cams in positions as described is unlikely to result in a stronger or more secure placement that in a regulation parallel crack. Of course not everything is a regulation parallel crack, placing a cam behind a slight constriction is fine.

bearbreeder wrote:Zeros, small camalots/friends/dragons are rated passively and you can places those in constrictions just fine Wuz dat ai douzand werds??? ;)

Since when are Zero's rated for passive placement? EDIT: It seems you are correct according to WC. However I don't trust the TINY cam stops on my #2 Zero.

aikibujin wrote: Are you seriously calling this a "passive placed cam"?

I hope he isn't! That cam looks fine.

I agree that passively placed cams are largely useless. It was a marketing feature that arose out of dual axle designs. That said most small cams aren't rated for passive placements. (For me, small cams are << BD #0.3)

aikibujin wrote: Are you seriously calling this a "passive placed cam"?

Clearly not, I was just refering to a previous statement about passive cams...

I also remember a Ray jardine quote that still seems good "when your talking about a quarter of an inch camming, it's not much range"

john strand wrote: Clearly not, I was just refering to a previous statement about passive cams...

Ok, I was just confused since in one sentence you were talking about that particular placement, and in the next you were talking about passive placed cams. Moving on!

patto wrote:Regarding cam strength and potential for failure. The ultimate strength of a well placed cam is normally in the wire not the lobes or axle(s). So placing small cams in positions as described is unlikely to result in a stronger or more secure placement that in a regulation parallel crack. Of course not everything is a regulation parallel crack, placing a cam behind a slight constriction is fine. Since when are Zero's rated for passive placement? EDIT: It seems you are correct according to WC. However I don't trust the TINY cam stops on my #2 Zero. I hope he isn't! That cam looks fine. I agree that passively placed cams are largely useless. It was a marketing feature that arose out of dual axle designs. That said most small cams aren't rated for passive placements. (For me, small cams are << BD #0.3)

All zeros, in fact all the current DMM and WC cams are passively rated ... The brit make em that way for a reason

Folks who climb in limestone like to work their cams into pods, constrictions and other places where they wont come out ... And act as passive pieces if the active placement slips, which happens on limestone sometimes

Out heres there are a few parallel internally flaring cracks where a hex would be bomber, but no one carries those anymore ... A passively rated cam slides and locks right in ... A nut would just rattle out

As to "just use a nut" ... On multi sometimes you already used up the appropriate sizes nuts ... And for larger constrictions who brings up the largest sized nuts anyways .... Bringing up an extra green/red camalot is generally more useful

;)