Modular vertical/horizontal front points?

The release of the Petzl Lynx as a crampon with easily- and fully-adjustable front points has gotten me thinking... Is there a particular reason that no manufacturers have made crampons with modular/replaceable horizontal frontpoints? You could have one crampon for which you could switch out horiz. and vert. frontpoints.

All I can think of is that they'd probably need a little extra structural reinforcement vs. if they are actually part of the front piece. So they'd probably be even heavier than modular vertical front points. But only by what, 50-100 g? Seems like a weight penalty that a lot of people would pay if it saved them from buying another pair of crampons. Although there is also the fact that if someone wants a horizontal crampon to climb steep ice, it's probably alpine steep ice. So weight is a premium.

Thoughts?

Hi Matt,

One reason I can think of that "We don't want you to buy only one pair of crampon from us!". For a decent pair of crampons, it will last as long as 10+ years, so they can't make money if they make some kind of modular crampons for all terrain.

With the new Lynx's modular bail system for 3/4 and full sole boots, now climber can have one pair of crampons for two boots. I contacted Petzl and they mentioned that they may release the modular binding bail for all other older Petzl crampons. but they are still testing to see if that works!

But yeah I agree with you that if there is such modular system, our life will be much easier! No more frustration is getting two pair of crampons for different climbs.

Seems like it would be pretty easy to make a crampon system that has a single heel piece and 2 interchangeable forefoot pieces - one with horizontal frontpoints and one with vertical frontpoints.

Allen C wrote:Seems like it would be pretty easy to make a crampon system that has a single heel piece and 2 interchangeable forefoot pieces - one with horizontal frontpoints and one with vertical frontpoints.

Theoretically, you can already do that with a number of brands' crampons, but sadly the fronts and backs aren't sold separately. The petzl dart and dartwin works basically by he same idea. Same crampon, different forefoot pieces, and you can purchase the whole forefoot as one separate piece to change from dual to mono.

With regards to having interchangeable POINTS, I very much doubt that this is doable from an engineering perspective. The system for attaching replacement vertical points via bolts works very nicely because torque to the points is applied along the strongest axis of the point. If you were to try to use the same system, but change the shape of the point to horizontal, you introduce a weak point where the horizontal meets the vertical. Though I am not an engineer, I highly doubt that there is an easy and efficient way of making this work by swapping out front points alone.

One of the key benefits to horizontal front points is simplicity. Single piece construction generally means durability, reliability, low weight and cheap construction. You lose all of that when you start making modular points.

Its a good idea, I've often wanted modular horizontal points myself. It would be very easy for Petzl to make something like this and I could see them doing it in the near future.

shoo wrote:With regards to having interchangeable POINTS, I very much doubt that this is doable from an engineering perspective. The system for attaching replacement vertical points via bolts works very nicely because torque to the points is applied along the strongest axis of the point. If you were to try to use the same system, but change the shape of the point to horizontal, you introduce a weak point where the horizontal meets the vertical. Though I am not an engineer, I highly doubt that there is an easy and efficient way of making this work by swapping out front points alone.

Like I said, it should be possible - just probably a bit heavier than vertical points. Imagine a shorter vertical point acting essentially as a cross-support under an horizontal point. Shorter because it would have to end soon enough to allow for a proper shovel shape to protrude.

I guess that's clumsy and ugly and heavy, and that's why.

Good point on interchangeable front and back halves, though.