Pre C4 Camalots

I am building my trad rack, and beginning to think about the larger sizes.  I have seen some older camalots in the half sizes, and was wondering how often they come in handy.  Are there really times where only they fit, or do they work more as "doubles" to overlap between the normal sizes?  Also, would the pre C4 #4 be the same range as the C4?

The old 4 is larger than a modern 4. Ive heard they can be essential for some creek routes, but otherwise I wouldnt bother. 

New = Old (with slightly more range) except:

Old 3.5 has no new equivalent and  can occasionally be indispensable.

New 3 and New 4 have more range to accommodate the lack of new 3.5

New 5 = Old 4.5 with more range

New 6 = Old 5 with more range

I own both a "new" #4 and a pre-C4 Camalot #4. The old one is midway between the new #4 and the new #5. And it weighs a lot more. I tend to carry the new #4 and leave the old one behind. Someday, I"m sure, I'll come to an offwidth where I can use both. At which point I'll probably have left the old one at home. 

Thanks, everyone! With all the C4's for sale on here I'll probably just get the new 4 and 5.

JP S wrote:

Thanks, everyone! With all the C4's for sale on here I'll probably just get the new 4 and 5.

do you ever climb OW? Because the 5 and 6 tend to rarely come into play unless you're really into that.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Can anyone explain how this isn't contradictory? I've never fondled a 3.5 (insert joke about "except my own" here) so I don't know what I'm missing

3.5 was in the range between the top end of the current 3 and the bottom of the current 4. But because the new cams have more range you no longer need an extra cam to achieve that.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

To me, indispensable would mean it is the only cam that can cover that size.  Black Diamond claims the #3 covers 2.00 to 3.46 inches, and the #4 covers 2.60 to 4.51 inches  Hell, even the #5 covers 3.36 inches as its minimum.  Maybe it's just people trying to sell the #3.5's, but I would say it's not indispensable

I think the idea is that there are little gaps where, with the new sizes, you have to choose between tipped out of overcammed whereas the older size would fit perfectly there. I've heard the 3.5 can be really useful on a few routes at the creek and then that some of the half sizes and the purple (i think #4) can be pretty crucial for off-width.

The fact that people can sell a used old #4 camalot for MSRP and sometimes even more, speaks to the fact that they are highly prized in some circles. I don't climb much off-width so I can really speak to the validity of these claims, so I'll defer to the people who are willing to shell out upwards of $70 for an old camalot.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

To me, indispensable would mean it is the only cam that can cover that size.  Black Diamond claims the #3 covers 2.00 to 3.46 inches, and the #4 covers 2.60 to 4.51 inches  Hell, even the #5 covers 3.36 inches as its minimum.  Maybe it's just people trying to sell the #3.5's, but I would say it's not indispensable

Then you haven't been on a route where you'd sell your kingdom for that size. I prefer the Large Metolius Supercam if I didn't bring the 3.5

Another missing size in BD cam is between a 0.75 and 1.0. but not as severe as the 3.5 gap. Black metolius cam works well here

Short answer, I am very happy to own and have utilized many times the old 3.5 and 4. However I like offwidth, live close to Vedauwoo, and make regular trips to the Creek.

To further the point for usefulness of between sizes at the creek, I've put to good use my BD 3.5 and Metolius Fat Cam #9, which fits slightly smaller than 3.5 but still bigger than 3. An old Friend #4 also fits somewhere in this range. Additionally in the creek I carry a single Friend #3 for that moment a BD #2 is feeling too tipped out (not too often since I have #2s on the end of each arm, but when those are pumped it's a welcomed luxury). Tipped out 3s (or any size) in sandstone when pumped from 100+ feet of baggy hand jams doesn't inspire confidence, nor do tipped out 4s when hand stacking and your knee won't fit (I'm still working on that comfy calf lock). Some climbs recommend Friend sizes because BD sizes are tipped out for most of the climb (ex Think Pink). SC Memorial (160 feet!) first comes to mind where the 3.5 was much appreciated. With all that being said, lots of people are safely and happily climbing without those between sizes.

Regarding their value, I paid $45 and $50 for the 3.5 and 4, respectively, both in great condition. I do not think they are worth new cam prices, nor feel the need to own more than one of each. I haven't found a spot where I was wishing for an old 4.5, but based on how the other old sizes fill between I believe it's out there. I don't foresee the old 5 being as useful. Unfortunately when I find the placement for those cams, I'll be far from MP's powers to connect me with the aging-used-to-want-to-be-offwidth climber that has a mint one floating around the bottom of his gear bin that begs to be put in the crack I would be falling out of.

Bear in mind that the OP is "beginning to build" his trad rack. So all the great observations about esoteric sizes that work great in that one special crack in Utah are probably beside the point. A beginner doesn't need to be carrying every imaginable option for every possible contingency. There's a reason a "standard rack" ie. BD sizes .4-3 or 4 is standard. Sure, you might find a placement where your #2 is tipped out and your #3 is tight. But unless you're on some rare splitter in most cases it's just a case of looking up or down a few feet to find a better placement.

If you can get them cheap buy them, who cares what size they are, they will come in handy at some point.

James Schroeder wrote:

New = Old (with slightly more range) except:

Old 3.5 has no new equivalent and  can occasionally be indispensable.

New 3 and New 4 have more range to accommodate the lack of new 3.5

New 5 = Old 4.5 with more range

New 6 = Old 5 with more range

There is nothing in the C4 design that gives more range than the older cams.  Perhaps they changed their advertised range. But a new 3 has no more range than the old 3.   

Old camalot #4: 3.2" to 4.1"

Old camalot 3.5: 2.6" to 3.4"

Old camalot 3: 2.1" to 2.9"

#3 C4: 2.1" to 2.8"

#4 C4: 2.7" to 3.6"

So old camlots had more range in the #3 size and equal but different range in the #4 size. 

http://clydesoles.com/Front/Camsbrand.html

Edit: note that these values are usable range, not max min.

Edit 2: corrected, old camalot #3 had more range not less

eli poss wrote:

Old camalot #4: 3.2" to 4.1"

Old camalot 3.5: 2.6" to 3.4"

Old camalot 3: 2.1" to 2.9"

#3 C4: 2.1" to 2.8"

#4 C4: 2.7" to 3.6"

So old camlots had less range in the #3 size and equal but different range in the #4 size. 

http://clydesoles.com/Front/Camsbrand.html

Edit: note that these values are usable range, not max min. 

DROP MIC.

Here's some more numbers for total usable range (Max usable range minus min usable range):

Old Camalots:

#3: 0.8"

#4: 0.9"

#4.5: 1.2"

#5: 1.1"

C4s:

#3: 0.7"

#4: 0.9"

#5: 1.2"

#6: 1.3

eli poss wrote:

Here's some more numbers for total usable range (Max usable range minus min usable range):

Old Camalots:

#3: 0.8"

#4: 0.9"

#4.5: 1.2"

#5: 1.1"

C4s:

#3: 0.7"

#4: 0.9"

#5: 1.2"

#6: 1.3

 Thanks for your Internet diligence. But there is no point comparing an old four to a new four and an old 5 to a new 5. They are completely different.  Comparing the old three to the new three is the only meaningful comparison  when it comes to advertised range. 

Greg D wrote:

 Thanks for your Internet diligence. But there is no point comparing an old four to a new four and an old 5 to a new 5. They are completely different.  Comparing the old three to the new three is the only meaningful comparison  when it comes to advertised range. 

Not quite. The ranges for old 4.5 & 5 are pretty similar to the new 5 & 6. The #4 comparison is less meaningful because the new #4 is closer to the old 3.5 but still a bit off so my bad on that one. But you still get meaningful comparisons for the new 3, 5, and 6 to the old 3, 4.5, and 5. 

eli poss wrote:

Not quite. The ranges for old 4.5 & 5 are pretty similar to the new 5 & 6. The #4 comparison is less meaningful because the new #4 is closer to the old 3.5 but still a bit off so my bad on that one. But you still get meaningful comparisons for the new 3, 5, and 6 to the old 3, 4.5, and 5. 

That doesn't even make any sense.  Similar?  Sure the old 4.5 is similar to the new 5.  But, the new 6 is definitely larger than the old 5 and the new 4 is bigger than the old 3.5.  But, you are missing my point.  I will spell it out again:

The new cams did not create a larger range for an identical size cam/lobe.  Do you get that?  

Put the charts aside.  For a given lobe size and cam angle, the range did not change at ALL!!!.  Hello?  That was my point.  Now get back to your internet cam charts to argue something I did NOT say.

BD wanted to cover a larger range with fewer cams and less expense.  They created the six, the largest cam they make.  Then, tweaked the sizes above 3.  They used to have 4 sizes above 3 to cover up to the five.  Now, they have only three sizes that "cover" a large range, but with less accuracy and cost.  

AndrewArroz wrote:

Bear in mind that the OP is "beginning to build" his trad rack. So all the great observations about esoteric sizes that work great in that one crack in Utah are probably beside the point. A beginner doesn't need to be carrying every imaginable option for every possible contingency. There's a reason a "standard rack" ie. BD sizes .4-3 or 4 is standard. Sure, you might find a placement where your #2 is tipped out and your #3 is tight. But unless you're on some rare splitter in most cases it's just a case of looking up or down a few feet to find a better placement.

While I agree a beginner or typical standard rack does not need large or in between sizes, you are incorrect that this information is not pertinent. To correctly quote the OP, "building my trad rack, and beginning to think about the larger sizes" has no mention of being at the early stages of building a rack, nor being a beginner climber, and directly expresses possible interest in protecting wider cracks. Plus Arizona is not far from the creek. Furthermore the thread title is pre c4 camalots, not beginner trad rack. For anyone building a rack and considering the need for larger sizes, this "esoteric" information would be very helpful to focus their budget in the right places for their climbing desires. I don't understand why you discourage this information being out there.

eli poss wrote:

So old camlots had more range in the #3 size and equal but different range in the #4 size. 

http://clydesoles.com/Front/Camsbrand.html

Edit: note that these values are usable range, not max min.

The usable range of a cam is very subjective. The chart you're referencing for comparison is one guy's idea of usable range. Doing just some quick math on the C4 #6, his numbers are 3mm and 10mm off from what I calculate to be 10% and 60% of the total expansion range (what BD lists as range). The C4 #3 is only 2mm off, however the point is this chart or any number data is not a reliable means for analyzing the in between cam sizes we're talking about. Placing them is the only true self assured way of knowing, but a close second is advice from those ahead on the same path. I went through all of this a year ago and ended up buying most everything that Black Diamond and Metolius makes or once did, plus some Wild Country and DMM, and only after having both pieces on my rack for multiple climbs, comparing them side by side in the rock and most importantly how they feel in those tough moments, do I feel confident in what in between sizes are useful to me.

Caz Drach wrote:

DROP MIC.

I hope you are intending the pun, referencing micrometer.

Greg D wrote:

...  For a given lobe size and cam angle, the range did not change at ALL!!!.  

Greg,  just one quick point, BD camalots have a third variable that they can change to increase cam range.  If you increase the distance between the two axles it will also increase the cam range.  I've never measured the axle spacing of old vs new camalots, but it is certainly possible to keep both the lobe size and cam angle the same while still increasing the cam's overall range by spreading the two axles further apart.