Anodizing on Cam Lobes

I've heard a few people making something of the fact that BD anodizes the lobes on some of their cams while other manufacturers (DMM/WC) do not, so I decided to ask BD directly. Their response:

"Our product designer confirmed that DMM and Wildcountry remove their anodizing from the surface of the lobes that come in contact with the rock and they have a patent on removing the anodizing - so that other manufacturers can’t."

A) I had no idea that was a patentable feature; however, the more interesting question is...
B) Does anodizing have ANY effect on the coefficient of friction on the lobes of the cams, or does anodizing reduce the effectiveness of the cam in any way? My guess is it does not (since many nuts are also anodized), but I haven't seen a study to prove or disprove my admittedly uninformed opinion. 

Chris Fedorczak wrote: 
B) Does anodizing have ANY effect on the coefficient of friction on the lobes of the cams, or does anodizing reduce the effectiveness of the cam in any way? 

Yes

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/111807535/officially-sold-on-totem-cams

You can read this thread, there's some argument of if it's the anodization or the camming angle or if any of it matters since OP was testing in plastic instead of rock. But imo, anodizing reduces friction in some circumstances. If that will matter in "real" climbing isn't obvious.

Anodizing definitely reduces the coefficient of friction, which can be an issue in very slick rock. For most rocks other than quartzite and limestone, though, it's not really enough of a difference to cause an issue. Also, the anodization wears off pretty quickly with use so if you climb some sandstone or granite before getting on really slick rock then you should be fine. I'm surprised too that this is something you can patent though. 

If you are really worried about it, take some steel wool and scuff up the lobes before you head out of the 1st time.  Or just use them... they will scuff up just fine on their own.

Matt Himmelstein wrote: If you are really worried about it, take some steel wool and scuff up the lobes before you head out of the 1st time.  Or just use them... they will scuff up just fine on their own.

Hi, Matt. I'm not worried about it at all actually. Since countless people around the world use BD cams without dying, I figured it wasn't really an issue. I was just curious if anyone has a real study that simulates real life conditions which proves or disproves the hypothesis that anodizing reduces friction.

what an insane thing to patent.
can we complain that it results in people shaving off their cams and spreading anodized metals all across the world instead of the manufacturers dealing with it properly at the source??

nathanael wrote:

Yes

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/111807535/officially-sold-on-totem-cams

Hi Nathaniel, Thanks for sharing the video and thread, but that "test" seems pretty disparate from a real world scenario. 

J Squared wrote: what an insane thing to patent.
can we complain that it results in people shaving off their cams and spreading anodized metals all across the world instead of the manufacturers dealing with it properly at the source??

What? Why does it matter how the anodization is removed, it can either be removed through contact with the rock, or the manufacturer can remove it in the factory.  Is there some concern about "spreading anodized metals all across the world" than noone else is aware of, because last I checked, aluminum is the third most abundant element on earth and oxygen is the second, so aluminum oxide (anodized aluminum) is an extremely natural compound.

As for the OPs question, no tests are required, it is very well known that anodized aluminum has a lower coeficient of friction than unanodized aluminum, that's why you hard anodize aluminum for wear surfaces.  As you noted however, it really isn't an issue since it doesn't matter for most rocks, and after a little bit of use, the anodization wears off anyway.

Anodizing can decrease the friction between the lobe and other surfaces. Anodized nuts aren't as much of an issue as friction isn't one of the forces ultimately stopping your fall with a good nut placement. If you would prefer unanodized cam lobes it is pretty easy to get rid of.

I was actually curious about this as the closest place for me to climb is Devils Lake where the quartzite is very slick.  Would it be advantageous to get something other than the C4 for climbing out there?  I understand it could be an issue, but in practice is it actually noticeable?

Matt S. wrote: I was actually curious about this as the closest place for me to climb is Devils Lake where the quartzite is very slick.  Would it be advantageous to get something other than the C4 for climbing out there?  I understand it could be an issue, but in practice is it actually noticeable?

On quartzite, yes, it is noticeable.  The best cam to get for quartzite is the totem cam.  You can also just lightly sand the BD lobes to remove the anodized layer, but they still won't be as good as Totem cams (or even as good as most other brands of cams due to the more agressive caming angle on BD cams).

J Squared wrote: what an insane thing to patent.

Actually not, patents are for  protecting innovation more importantly they are used to give the patent holder right to use the idea to their exclusive benefit (i.e. to give themselves an advantage over their competition). And why threads like this one: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/111807535/officially-sold-on-totem-cams make the patent holders happy.

Allen Sanderson wrote:

Actually not, patents are for  protecting innovation more importantly they are used to give the patent holder right to use the idea to their exclusive benefit (i.e. to give themselves an advantage over their competition). And why threads like this one: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/111807535/officially-sold-on-totem-cams make the patent holders happy.

Yes, but at least in theory, patents were only supposed to be granted for ideas that were truly innovative, and NOT for unreasonable/obvious things.  For example if an idea which solves some problem is so simple that almost anyone would have the same idea, then it is not supposed to be patent able.  I'm not a patent lawyer (or any kind of lawyer thankfully), but a patent on grinding glassy smooth annodization off of the (friction critical) surface of a cam lobe seems like a pretty obvious solution to me.

Its like saying anyone can paint something any color they want, but if you scrape the paint off of areas where paint is a hindrance, then you have to pay a license fee.  Ridiculous.

To me, it seems like patents are supposed to protect different design ideas, not really a particular manufacturing practice. It seems a bit ridiculous to dictate that nobody else is allowed to grind or machine off the anodization from the lobes. It seems kind of like a rope manufacturer saying that nobody else is allowed to use the yellow sheath yarns.

From EP2954937(A1):-

"[0014]    From a second aspect, this invention provides a cam element for a camming device which has a body on which is formed a working surface, in which the body, as manufactured, has applied to it a coating, primarily for size identification during use, other than in the region of the working surface.

    [0015]    Although this adds to complication in manufacture, the absence of a coating enhances the grip of the working surface (or avoids the degradation of the grip that is caused by the presence of a coating). It should be noted that in conventional cam elements, which are entirely coated, the coating may partially or completely wear from the working surface after a period of use. In this context, the coating is one that is applied as a manufacturing step, such as by an anodisation process, as distinct from a naturally-occurring passivation coating as forms naturally on metals such as aluminium.

    [0016]    One or more cam elements in a device embodying the first aspect of the invention may be embodiments of the second aspect of the invention.

    [0017]    This invention also provides a method of making a cam element comprising forming a body, applying a coating to the body, and performing an operation on the body to form a working surface, thereby removing the coating in the region of the working surface. Such an operation may include one or more of machining, abrading, or blasting. This invention further provides a method of making a cam element comprising forming a body that includes a working surface, applying a resist or a mask to the working surface, and then applying a coating to the body other than in the region of the resist or mask."

Looks like an absolutely normal process anyone in industry would patent and clearly the examiners thought so as well  

Jim Titt wrote: 
Looks like an absolutely normal process anyone in industry would patent and clearly the examiners thought so as well  

So not only did they patent the process of scraping off some paint.  They also seem to patent the process of masking!  Even more rediculous!

Some of you guys are kind of funny and clearly miss the point of a patent and the importance it has played in the protection of ideas and products since its inception in this country and others, centuries before, to protect intellectual property.  The idea doesn't need to amazing, just unique.  And if you think it is such a simple idea, why didn't BD start doing a few decades ago?  Huh?  

You could say the same thing for BD's thumb loop.  How simple.  Of course.  We put our thumb there.  Lets make it fit a thumb well.  And, lets patent it.  Have you noticed the new WC cams have a very similar thumb loop?  It must have been a great idea.  

Since friction is a critical component to the success of a cam, any improvement in friction is an improvement.  Of the many cams that have ripped out, which ones would have held if the friction was 5% more?  Hard to say, of course.  This is highly speculative, but, the "very experienced" climber that decked on The Evictor in Eldo last year, fell on new BD's which were in what he believes to be good placements.  He had 3 cams rip.  If these cam were a bit older, had the anodizing scraped off, or went through WC's "cleaning" process, would the cam have held?  Again, highly speculative.

people defending the rights of this patent which is on a device that your life literally depends on are "missing the point"

this patent is like someone attempting to patent the idea of the safety switch on a gun.  sure, you can jerry rig your own, but...

perhaps the owners of these patent monopolies can share the fruits of their sacred labor by footing the medical bills of those injured via fully-anodized cams that ripped for the duration of their patent.

cyclestupor wrote:

So not only did they patent the process of scraping off some paint.  They also seem to patent the process of masking!  Even more rediculous!

As Greg D says it´s clear you don´t understand patents, what they cover and their benefits to everyone. The DMM patent specifically covers the removal of a coating from parts of a cam lobe to improve its function, not how you remove it. That other manufacturers are too cheap or lazy to realise the benefits of doing this and not smart enough to patent this as a concept is their problem. They can at any time either a) contest the patent b) pay a royalty to DMM to improve their product, the sum to be paid decided either by agreement or by arbitration.

Patent exist to allow companies to openly publish details of their invention/process for the general benefit of the community by giving the patent holder certain intellectual protection for usually 20 years, the previous system of secrecy was a disaster for industry and science.

J Squared wrote: people defending the rights of this patent which is on a device that your life literally depends on are "missing the point"

this patent is like someone attempting to patent the idea of the safety switch on a gun.  sure, you can jerry rig your own, but...

perhaps the owners of these patent monopolies can share the fruits of their sacred labor by footing the medical bills of those injured via fully-anodized cams that ripped for the duration of their patent.

Does anything NOT piss you off?

J Squared wrote: people defending the rights of this patent which is on a device that your life literally depends on are "missing the point"

First, I would like ask you which right that you have that I should to take from you against your wishes?

perhaps the owners of these patent monopolies can share the fruits of their sacred labor by footing the medical bills of those injured via fully-anodized cams that ripped for the duration of their patent.

Since you feel this is a life saving idea, it must be good enough to deserve a patent.  Perhaps the owners of BD could foot the bill to license the patent.  WC felt BD's thumb loop concept was good enough to pay BD to use it.  

Jim's last paragraph sums it up well.  Patents protect for a "brief period" of time.  After that, anyone, any company can just flat out copy their idea and get the benefit of someone else's idea, which, often took lots of time and money to develop.