Tricam EVO's versus regular old style Tricams

The other day another climber mentioned to me that he liked the old style Tricams better compared to the EVO's because in active mode the head is narrower and can fit in smaller pockets. I bought the EVO's already and I'm sure I'll like them. But I was curious if others have discovered this to be the case such that there might be a good usage case for both styles of Tricams versus Camp discontinuing the old style and making all future Tricams into the EVO style.

Thoughts?

I have 1 pink evo and 1 pink normal. It all just depends on where you are placing it, sometimes it is nicer to have the narrow evo head but other times i prefer having the older wider head so there is more contact with the rock.

For the most part i don't think it matters to much the evo in caming position due to the narrow head is probably more likely to spin, but if it is set solid it shouldn't matter either way.

to my understanding evos have a more rigid stem for easier placement n such

Dylan B. wrote:I just bought the dyneema tricams (pink-blue) by accident. I thought I was buying the originals online, but didn't read closely. Anyone have positive or negative things to say about them relative to the originals?

i own the dyneema set but i've used both and i prefer the dyneema set. they're anodized and, in theory, a dyneema sling is going to be lighter and more resistant to abrasion than nylon. that being said, i wish the set was black through red because i use those the most frequently.

The dynema slings are very floppy and make placing tri-cams more difficult. I sold mine after the first time out. Even doing the standard stiffing tricks didn't work all that well. I've got one old nylon set and one new Evo set. Haven't used the evo's enough to form an opinion yet.

EDITED: I'm talking about the older style ( non Evo ) dyneema Tri-cams.

thecmacattack wrote:to my understanding evos have a more rigid stem for easier placement n such

All the new ones have stiff stems now. Doesn't matter if they are evo or not they have triple thick stitched webbing on them.

The evo has a slightly larger head but the point on the evo is smaller so depending on the placement if only the point is against the rock it is questionable. however if you get the entire head against it than it is wider.

Alot of places i end up placing them generally only has the point really caming, which makes the evos questionable sometimes.

Caming on just the tip is questionable on evo but generally fine with it on the old style. (this is an evo but normal one would be twice as wide)

Not an evo if you see the point is wider than the evo picture below


Evo picture of the point


I will upload a better picture later cause it is really hard to find a good comparison but the tip of a evo is half the size of the tip on an old style one.

The head is slightly narrow on the old styles. For me, that is not enough to stay with the old style. The one-handed placements are much easier with the EVO. The black tri-cam is also rated for chocked placements on the EVO due to the pin being stronger. I used to tape up the sling on the old style dyneema to stiffen it. Now I don't have to with the EVO's. I was worried that the stiffer slings on the EVO would cause the tri-cam to walk, but that has not been observed. I normally place a tri-cam or two on just about every route I climb, so they are getting regular testing. I'll never go back!

does anyone know if the evos have a stiffer sling than the current dyneema ones? because i thought that all the new slings were sewn stiffer.

eli poss wrote:does anyone know if the evos have a stiffer sling than the current dyneema ones? because i thought that all the new slings were sewn stiffer.

I don't know about dyneema but they are the same stiffness on evo and non-evo.

Just to set the record straight:

All tricams (evo, nylon aka old style, dyneema) currently have triple thick, stiffly sewn slings in the small sizes. This change was made about 2 years ago now. The new slings do sort of poke out above the rails. This may cause additional abrasion, but I haven't seen any in practice.

Evos' bodies (aka the measurement between "cam shoulders") are slightly wider. The nylon and dyneema pink are about 25mm wide. Apparently the evo pink is about 26mm according to Climb for joy.

Evos have a significantly narrower fulcrum. On old pinks, the fulcrum is closer to a semi-circle, on the evos it's closer to a point.

The strengths of Evos and Nylons are comparable. The Pink and Red are slightly different. The Dyneema are stronger (and lighter) in all cases. CAMP's website currently has a typo in the strength listings and lists the pink's and red's strengths too low.

The parts of a tricam for reference, according to CAMP:

see i dont like the small fulcrum point, makes it wiggle too much

For me, the smaller fulcrum seems to set better than the larger and stay set. At least that is what the wifey says when she is cleaning.

I agree with Dylan's abrasion observation of the dyneema slings. It is bulkier than the nylon. The old style nylon is stiffer than the dyneema. I also like the nylon tricam colors. The dyneema colors are not as easy to differentiate.

Here is a picture to compare the size of the tricams. As you can see evo has a bigger shoulder but old style has bigger fulcrum. Depending on where you are placing it one will be better than the other, I have one of each so i can always just pick the best one for the spot i am at.

the more surface area in contact with the rock the better the placement. wider fulcrum = better placement

thecmacattack wrote:the more surface area in contact with the rock the better the placement. wider fulcrum = better placement

Not entirely true. Consider ice tools and crampons. They are able to support a tremendous amount of weight on the tiniest point of contact.

Yeah Tricams are like the biggest exceptions to that rule...it's funny, I never really noticed the difference and couldn't honestly tell you which of my Tricams are Evo and which are regular. I'd prefer the pointy Evo tip most of the time because it lets you get away with funkier placements where that's all the contact you can get, and you can place that point behind little crystals/in pods to make it bomber. Might be nice to have doubles at least in the Pink though...I could see the wider tip being more solid on ";standard"; placements (although an alien would probably work better in that situation anyways).

All just depends on the placement. I know horizontals where the evo is bad because it is flaring and wiggles when placed but a standard will stay fine. I also know placements with there is a little hole where the evo is bomber and the standard one can't get good contact.

(I know this is an old thread, but it's still relevant)

I have a set of evos and old tricams. I don't know who designed the evos and for what purpose, but the old design is superior. 

1) The round fulcrum is FAR superior for placing in pockets especially shallow ones where you have to point the fulcrum towards you. This is difficult to describe without a photo, but the round fulcrum bites in ways the pointy fulcrum does not. The pointy fulcrum also increases PSI which can lead to softer rock breaking (I know some guys who use them in limestone, for example) although this hasn't happened to be personally.

2) The newer ones are wider which also contribute to difficulty with narrow pocket placement. I did have a black tricam pop for this reason.

3) The newer tricams have the absolutely useless flare which someone sitting on a desk may have thought was a good idea, but simply doesn't work in the field. I've climbed in many, many kinds of rock with the evos and never found a single use for the wedge shape. If the sides were shaped like a Metolius curved nut or even hexentric it might have worked but the flat wedge doesn't inspire confidence anywhere. Maybe this can be modified?

Trad Man wrote:

(I know this is an old thread, but it's still relevant)

I have a set of evos and old tricams. I don't know who designed the evos and for what purpose, but the old design is superior. 

1) The round fulcrum is FAR superior for placing in pockets especially shallow ones where you have to point the fulcrum towards you. This is difficult to describe without a photo, but the round fulcrum bites in ways the pointy fulcrum does not. The pointy fulcrum also increases PSI which can lead to softer rock breaking (I know some guys who use them in limestone, for example) although this hasn't happened to be personally.

2) The newer ones are wider which also contribute to difficulty with narrow pocket placement. I did have a black tricam pop for this reason.

3) The newer tricams have the absolutely useless flare which someone sitting on a desk may have thought was a good idea, but simply doesn't work in the field. I've climbed in many, many kinds of rock with the evos and never found a single use for the wedge shape. If the sides were shaped like a Metolius curved nut or even hexentric it might have worked but the flat wedge doesn't inspire confidence anywhere. Maybe this can be modified?

I have the evos and picket them as they had the taper. I have never used them much and pretty much only carry them an long trad multipitch. I have never placed them using the taper, only in camming mode. It is hard to imagine that the other set would be much better?

Trad Man wrote:

(I know this is an old thread, but it's still relevant)

I have a set of evos and old tricams. I don't know who designed the evos and for what purpose, but the old design is superior. 

1) The round fulcrum is FAR superior for placing in pockets especially shallow ones where you have to point the fulcrum towards you. This is difficult to describe without a photo, but the round fulcrum bites in ways the pointy fulcrum does not. The pointy fulcrum also increases PSI which can lead to softer rock breaking (I know some guys who use them in limestone, for example) although this hasn't happened to be personally.

2) The newer ones are wider which also contribute to difficulty with narrow pocket placement. I did have a black tricam pop for this reason.

3) The newer tricams have the absolutely useless flare which someone sitting on a desk may have thought was a good idea, but simply doesn't work in the field. I've climbed in many, many kinds of rock with the evos and never found a single use for the wedge shape. If the sides were shaped like a Metolius curved nut or even hexentric it might have worked but the flat wedge doesn't inspire confidence anywhere. Maybe this can be modified?

I’ve never used the old style tricams, but in my experience the evos work better than anything else in flaring pockets where nothing else will, maybe because of the increased surface area/slant? Could be the old style tricams work just as well in those situations, I couldn’t say.

I had a total weekend whipper where an alien ripped out of a flared piton scar, but the tricam in the piton scar below held and saved my life.