[slackline]

I was bored over xmas so sat down and collated information (range, strength, weight, rating, colour) on as many different cams as I could find (n = 230).  The data was collected on 2015-12-19 from manufacturers websites.

Here is the first in a series of graphs summarising the information plotted using the superb ggplot2 package in R.

This shows the range of each cam by manufacturers model...


Cam Comparision - Range by Manufacturers Model by slack---line, on Flickr

I was going to add this to the UKBWiki but my login details (which are supposed to be the same as the forum) are still not recognised. 

[Paul B]

...now if you just add the tape colours to the plot 

[slackline]

...now if you just add the tape colours to the plot 

I've recorded that and its something I'd already thought about and is in the pipeline.

However, ggplot2 (used to create this) only creates static images, I'm intending to create dynamic images using the related ggvis package and create a website using Shiny (and host it at Shinyapps.io) to display it all because I think that would allow greater interaction between the data and the user with an added advantage permitting 'tooltips' so that when you move the mouse over given item a box pops up with information about the specific cam.

One slightly tricky thing is that I've recorded the colours as described, but "Blue" as used might refer to different shades.  I might if I can be arsed try and get the exact RGB for each cam and use those but it would be based on pictures from the web (and I'd need to be really bored to go and visit all the websites again, take screen shots, open images in GIMP and pick the colour to get the RGB value to specify).

[Paul B]

You can't do that with a Google Docs Sheet into a Google Site (as per others on UKB)?

[slackline]

I recorded the data in a Google Sheet (and read it directly into R using googlesheets package) but I already know and use R and ggplot2 and don't have the time/inclination to learn how to write Google Sites or draw graphs in Google Sheets as I would rather invest that time in improving my rudimentary Shiny knowledge as its of greater benefit for work and this is a vehicle for learning how to do some things I don't know.

I doubt you could get Shiny working under Google Sites since it runs from an instance of R (essentially R acts as the webserver).

[jwi]

edit: Sorry. Should have read first, and comment after. Not the other way around.

If you have access to a server you can install an r-server on it and run R sort of interactively. We did it with an ugly php<>script<>Rscript interaction. I did the Rscript side, and a web developer did the rest.

[slackline]

I'll likely make a package out of it for others to play around with.

At some point I'll be having a go at deploying my own shiny server.


Whilst learning for work its also serving as a way of learning how to do a load of stuff I'm not currently very familiar with for a training diary that I've been meaning to do for ages.  I've had a Google Form setup for a year and bit where I record what little training I do (fingerboarding, indoor routes, "limit" bouldering, outdoor routes) and have been using it to collect my own data but haven't done anything with regards to writing code to pull it out of the Google Sheet (now easy to do) and produce summaries (tabular and graphical) as I'm usually too busy with work(/posting on UKB) and when not working trying to fit climbing around my other responsibilities.

Loooong way down the line I'd package this up too and release the code so that other interested parties could use the training diary and tweak to their own devices.

[LB1782]

I believe you can use R in project jupyter (formally ipython) notebooks and have them 'magically' rendered to webpages by github

    http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2015/09/using-r-with-jupyter-notebooks.html

obviously wouldn't help you learn shiny for work but looks like it may have a lower barrier to entry... github does the hosting etc.

[slackline]

Cheers, will look into Jupyter, been meaning to learn more than hello world in Python for ages (although should really learn some PHP as I've some admin to do on another forum at some point).

Some other lazy graphs, nothing interactive yet, just working out what to plot and how.

This next plot is far from perfect but I wanted a way of showing in greater detail the range of each cam within a given model.  This is done using an option to set the x-axis to be free (i.e. variable) between facets (each little graph is a facet) but necessitated switching the facetting around compared to the original graph in this thread.  Its a limitation of the plotting software but I've an idea to get around this using wrapping instead of grid layout (late and not going to bother trying now).


Cam Comparison - Range by Manufacturer/Model (free x-axis) by slack---line, on Flickr.

This shows the range across all cams within a manufacturers model (perhaps useful if you were looking to buy a set)


Cam Comparison - Overall Range by Manufacturers Model by slack---line, on Flickr

Adding a legend massively reduces the size of the plotted area for these next two, for now you can refer to the above chart for reference (the colours match so if you find a dot, look it up on the above, although there isn't a huge amount of variation between some categories, this is something I'm going to work on, perhaps allowing users to select which cams they want to compare).

Range v's Strength for all cams

Cam Comparison - Range v Strengh by slack---line, on Flickr

Range v's Strength for all cams except the Valley Giant 12 which has poor strength for its range and is clearly an outlier compared to all others...


Cam Comparison - Range v Strength (excl. Valley Giant 12) by slack---line, on Flickr


Totally unsurprising, larger cams weigh more, who'd have thought it...


Cam Comparison - Range v Weight by slack---line, on Flickr



Feedback & suggestions such as Paul B's colour coding plots with the cams colour are welcome.  It has been suggested to me that having the width of the head of cams (perpendicular to the lobes) would be really useful particularly for small placements as some are wide (e.g. Wild Country Zeros), others narrow (e.g. Black Diamond 3CUs), but this information isn't readily available on the manufacturers website when I was collating data.

[slackline]

Cam Comparison - Range by Manufacturer/Model (free axes) by slack---line, on Flickr

[Fultonius]

Excellent. R seems powerful. Might need to link into for my thesis.

Totem really bodged their marketing/branding strategy.  Totem "basic" sounds like Tesco "Value"  and basically nobody knows what to call the Original, totem, no-not-the-redesigned-alien, yes-the-other-one-Totem. Shame because they are the mutz nutz^(tm)

[slackline]

Is there a definitive conclusion about anything lurking in this thread anywhere?

What conclusion are you hoping for?

All I'm attempting to do is describe (graphically) the available data about cams, I've no hypothesis I'm trying to test for any conclusion to be drawn from.


I guess you could conclude I'm a bit sad to be spending my late nights/early mornings messing around doing such stuff. 

[duncan]

Is there a definitive conclusion about anything lurking in this thread anywhere?

Just get the totems.

[slackline]

Personally?: none

Cool, although your question suggested otherwise which is why I asked what conclusion you might be after.

, I have fixed views on this topic. If you are climbing long cracks with doubles or triples in individual cam sizes, the efficiency benefits of being standardised on a single brand far outweigh any of the factors you are considering. The default in this part of the world is BD camalots. It is real P.I.T.A when partners bring other stuff. OK, some variance in the smallest sizes: X4s, C3's and Aliens are all fairly common.

Useful to know.

As I say, I'm just trying to summarise the availability.  Chatting with friends I've had the following suggestions with regards to data and its representation...

• Colour Coding - to match the cams colours themselves, thanks Paul B
• Cam head width - particularly useful for smaller placements, e.g. WC Zeros are far wider than BD Camalots which could be critical for small placements.  Data not readily available on any manufacturers websites, so I'll likely contact them all directly.
• Lobe Width - really small detail but a friend suggested that knowing this might influence choice depending on the intended rock type.  For example you might go with wider widths if intending to climb on sandstone to maximise surface area contact.  Ultimately though this comes down to the quality of the rock so is of less importance.
• Cam Angle range - likely of passing interest since its ultimately the range covered as manifested from the angles that is key, but perhaps useful to some.  Again data not readily available on any manufacturers websites, so I'll likely contact them directly

Then with regards to a website and its UI the following have been suggested...

• Make it easy to compare sets - if someone is starting out or looking to replace all their cams it would be really nice to allow people to compare one manufacturers models to one/two/three others in regards to range covered and total weight.  For example double axles have wider range but are heavier v single axle which ties into your point about carrying double or triple sets of cams  on long routes which works best for personal preference  e.g. you could carry three sets of double axle cams as each covers a wider range but because of this there are less of them in a set so you might actually carry three sets.  Compared to single axle which are a bit lighter but because each individual one covers slightly less range there are more sizes you might just need two sets NB Largely conjecture at the moment since I've not "done the maths" yet, this was something my mate suggested in the pub this evening before we went to watch Far Far Away Wars.  If you have any data to support your fixed view it could be really useful but I appreciate each route is unique in this regard.
• Make it easy to compare individual cams - a way of selecting one cam then getting a graphical display comparing it to all others in similar ranges. For example you lose/trash a cam and want to replace it and rather than just buying the exact same replacement you might want to see if there is another option that covers the same range and perhaps a few mm more which to my mind would be a preferable purchase.

I can of course fully appreciate the benefits of being familiar with what you use yourself as it can be a pain in the arse taking your mates rack and searching for the right size piece of gear.  I don't envisage the planned website to alleviate that because no one is going to pull out their smartphone en route and check but the idea is it might make it easier to find what you want when considering the rack of gear you buy/take for a given rack/trip/route (the later two being if you have very specific goals in mind of course).

[Paul B]

Excellent. R seems powerful. Might need to link into for my thesis.

Totem really bodged their marketing/branding strategy.  Totem "basic" sounds like Tesco "Value"  and basically nobody knows what to call the Original, totem, no-not-the-redesigned-alien, yes-the-other-one-Totem. Shame because they are the mutz nutz^(tm)

Totem Classic and Tomtem Ultimate?

They should just use that photo of their 'Ultimate' in that flared pod / crack thing; unbelievable holding power!

[jwi]

Is there a definitive conclusion about anything lurking in this thread anywhere?

Just get the totems.

+1

If I would buy cams now, I would buy two set of totems up to #0.5 camelot size, 1 each above, and then 2 sets of camalots (BD, DMM or WC) for green and up.

[Wood FT]

Excellent. R seems powerful. Might need to link into for my thesis.

Totem really bodged their marketing/branding strategy.  Totem "basic" sounds like Tesco "Value"  and basically nobody knows what to call the Original, totem, no-not-the-redesigned-alien, yes-the-other-one-Totem. Shame because they are the mutz nutz^(tm)

Totem Classic and Tomtem Ultimate?

They should just use that photo of their 'Ultimate' in that flared pod / crack thing; unbelievable holding power!

James at the Outside simply put all the brands in an undercut hold on their shoe testing wall, all pulled out easily, he then put the Totem in and he could hang off it, blew me away. I made a promise right there and then to find out who was sponsored by them and become their friend.

[ghisino]

Is there a definitive conclusion about anything lurking in this thread anywhere?

Just get the totems.

+1

If I would buy cams now, I would buy two set of totems up to #0.5 camelot size, 1 each above, and then 2 sets of camalots (BD, DMM or WC) for green and up.

That's interesting.

Chris Mac posted up a Totem review recently, including a video.

FWIW he seems to view them primarily as something for an aid rack. "We don't really take them for free climbing ... "

the irony being that they work better than any other cam in some yosemite pinscars...

[jwi]

Maybe I'm biased since I do almost no trad except on multi pitch lime-stone walls. For the US-style “at least one bomber piece every body length on this 40 m pitch” of trad climbing I can see that it's a problem that totems don't rack so well on the harness.

[slackline]

it's a problem that totems don't rack so well on the harness.

Meant to post that this is the main reason some people don't seem to like them.

Seems a minor point to me though, if you're going to trust marginal placements on aid routes and want as good a piece of protection as possible and therefore use Totems then surely that transfers directly to trad in so much as the cams fit better and are more robust in marginal placements and the hassle of the racking is a hit you take against that. 

I've the blue (smallest) and red (largest) Totems so far and fully intend to fill the gaps and am particularly keen for the black (size down from blue) which have been mentioned in a few places but haven't yet made it to market.

[Fultonius]

Is there a definitive conclusion about anything lurking in this thread anywhere?

Just get the totems.

+1

If I would buy cams now, I would buy two set of totems up to #0.5 camelot size, 1 each above, and then 2 sets of camalots (BD, DMM or WC) for green and up.

That's interesting.

Chris Mac posted up a Totem review recently, including a video.

FWIW he seems to view them primarily as something for an aid rack. "We don't really take them for free climbing ... "

Yeah, be he can't free climb for shit, and all those nice parallel splitters don't really need them! 

It's definitely the marginal placements that give them their worth.

[galpinos]

Totem Classic and Tomtem Ultimate?

They should just use that photo of their 'Ultimate' in that flared pod / crack thing; unbelievable holding power!

Which are you calling "Ultimate"?

Is the consensus all the cams Totem make are great, or is it just the Totems or just the Basics?

[jwi]

the ones that have the new design are great. I have not tried their alien copies.

[slackline]

Is the consensus all the cams Totem make are great, or is it just the Totems or just the Basics?

The Basics are essentially Aliens, although according to the Andy Kirkpatrick article I linked above they have a slightly larger range than traditional Aliens.  So if you like Aliens you

Looking at the data I collected and comparing to the Fixe Hardware Alien Lite this appears to be true, although Fixe do more sizes...

Code: [Select]

> filter(cams.df, manufacturer == "Totem" & model == "Basic") %>% select(manufacturer, model, size, lower, upper, range)
Source: local data frame [4 x 6]

  manufacturer model   size lower upper range
         (chr) (chr) (fctr) (dbl) (dbl) (dbl)
1        Totem Basic    0.5  11.2  17.4   6.2
2        Totem Basic   0.65  13.6  21.4   7.8
3        Totem Basic   0.75  16.6  26.1   9.5
4        Totem Basic   0.95  19.9  31.6  11.7
> filter(cams.df, manufacturer == "Fixe Hardware" & model == "Alien Lite") %>% select(manufacturer, model, size, lower, upper, range)
Source: local data frame [6 x 6]

   manufacturer      model   size lower upper range
          (chr)      (chr) (fctr) (dbl) (dbl) (dbl)
1 Fixe Hardware Alien Lite    1/3     8    14     6
2 Fixe Hardware Alien Lite    3/8    10    17     7
3 Fixe Hardware Alien Lite    1/2    13    22     9
4 Fixe Hardware Alien Lite    3/4    15    25    10
5 Fixe Hardware Alien Lite    7/8    17    30    13
6 Fixe Hardware Alien Lite      1    20    33    13
So if you like Aliens then the Basics are great.  But the Totem Cams themselves are great too because of their holding in flared placements which no other cams (even the Basics) have.

[Fultonius]

"Ultimate"





Think I was on the Black Tower when I took those photos. I've never used the "Basics" (aliens)

[Paul B]

The ones that'll do this:



 

FWIW I bought:
Metolius Master
C3

for smalls

Then:
BD
Dragons

for larger sizes.

Having two different types was definitely of benefit in the smaller sizes (although I'd always pick the Masters over the C3s; on one [Aid] route i accidentally placed the green C3 as a passive piece [blind] and stood up on it). Having two different types in the larger sizes had some benefits (placements) but drawbacks too. Mixing aid and free meant we had a good mix but the lack of thumb ring on the dragons made aid slightly more of a PITA than it is already. I'm fairly sure I tested all of them at some point in the trip.

[duncan]

Is there a definitive conclusion about anything lurking in this thread anywhere?

Just get the totems.

+1

If I would buy cams now, I would buy two set of totems up to #0.5 camelot size, 1 each above, and then 2 sets of camalots (BD, DMM or WC) for green and up.

That's interesting.

Chris Mac posted up a Totem review recently, including a video.

FWIW he seems to view them primarily as something for an aid rack. "We don't really take them for free climbing ... "

Not outdoorgearlab's finest moment in my view, the comments following the review are illuminating. For perfect parallel granite or hard sandstone cracks needing a large rack, a single stem and big thumb-loop mean marginally less faff: Camalots, the latest Wild Country, and possibly Mastercams.  Anywhere holding power is remotely important, Totems are your best friend.

I've the blue (smallest) and red (largest) Totems so far and fully intend to fill the gaps and am particularly keen for the black (size down from blue) which have been mentioned in a few places but haven't yet made it to market.

Pictures of Black and Gold Totems are now circulating so you'd hope they will be in the shops soon.

[slackline]

I'd seen some pictures of the blacks here and there and BetaClimbingDesigns have listed them for a while.

I should have spare cash to splurge when they are available but currently saving for work on campervan.

I've been tinkering with getting a website up and running to allow comparison and am close to deploying something but have had trouble doing so on the intended host which I've not worked through yet.  Will update when its eventually online and working.

[Mumra]

Those black things are some of the sexist climbing kit that I've seen in a while 

[duncan]

Sexy new cams

Orange Totem v Gold Dragon





Black Totem v Blue CCH Alien

[Duncan campbell]

Duncan, am I right in thinking the black totem is the same size as a blue alien/basic??

Really looking forward to Totem making a black basic...

[Muenchener]

I'm not seeing the blueness of that "blue" alien. Has it darkened with age?

[Fultonius]

I wasn't sure if an orange totem would be worth it, but that really shows the difference....might have to finish my collection soon ;-)

How does it compare weight wise?

I wonder how robust the black will be? My blue is showing signs of wear (quite mashed!) on the lobes, but still works fine.

[duncan]

The black Totem doesn't go quite as small as the blue (original CCH) Alien, it's still worth having the latter. It is a little narrower so should go where no other 4 lobe cams fits.

I was struck by the narrowness of the orange Totem. This will increase the options in pockets and awkward pods (already a strong point) but may make it feel less stable than a wider head. I've not had a chance to test them properly yet.

[Fultonius]

I thought I would find the red less stable than a red catalog, but it's so flexible that it just seems to stay put. Not yet had one walk.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

[Will Hunt]

For the past month I've been using the two smallest Totems (the black and the blue). Really impressed with them so far. They seem to go in everywhere and inspire real confidence when they do. They just seem to "stick".
I've also used some dragons and thought they were the dogs as well.

I'm wondering which to go with as I replace my current set of cams. Is there any real data comparing their holding performance, especially in slick rocks like limestone? This is the most important thing for me as I'd like to be able to place kit in lime and be confident in it.

[Coops_13]

For the past month I've been using the two smallest Totems (the black and the blue). Really impressed with them so far. They seem to go in everywhere and inspire real confidence when they do. They just seem to "stick".
I've also used some dragons and thought they were the dogs as well.

I'm wondering which to go with as I replace my current set of cams. Is there any real data comparing their holding performance, especially in slick rocks like limestone? This is the most important thing for me as I'd like to be able to place kit in lime and be confident in it.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=8352
In this review, DMM claim they've made changes to improve this "stickiness" in limestone, slate etc.

[jwi]

I was struck by the narrowness of the orange Totem. This will increase the options in pockets and awkward pods (already a strong point) but may make it feel less stable than a wider head. I've not had a chance to test them properly yet.

Looks about as wide as the old HB quadcams. The quadcams #2.5 were never great in splitters. Up to #2 they were OK.

[tk421a]

Andy Kirkpatrick's just posted his cam thinking
http://andy-kirkpatrick.com/blog/view/what-cams
tldr
Totems, Totem basic for smalls, Camalots for big.
C3s for small as extras

[Footwork]

Cheers for that link tk421a

Like Will, also looking for cams as haven't bought any since uni! Thinking (for a long time) of getting the green and yellow totem basics for small cams. They seem to get rave reviews. Have the camalot c4's for purple upwards to blue and never had a problem. Having said that, when placed well, the wild country (old model) gave me the most amount of confidence. They just lacked the pumped loop and wide range the camalots afforded when scared.

[Will Hunt]

As far as I can tell, the Basics don't cover a smaller range than the normals, so unless it's all about saving weight I can't see much point in them?

[Mike Highbury]

I was struck by the narrowness of the orange Totem. This will increase the options in pockets and awkward pods (already a strong point) but may make it feel less stable than a wider head. I've not had a chance to test them properly yet.

I'll see what I can do for you.

[Duncan campbell]

As far as I can tell, the Basics don't cover a smaller range than the normals, so unless it's all about saving weight I can't see much point in them?

A blue basic is smaller than a black totem, Will. (as said above by Duncan)

If/when totem make a basic the equivalent size to a black alien that will be smaller again. I keep meaning to buy a fixe one but I keep forgetting.

I personally think basics are a brilliant bit of kit (disclaimer: I got a few for free to review for the other channel - I would say they were shit if they were though like those Mammut harness trousers I also had to review once)

Although on the flip side I am yet to be sold by Totem cams. I find they rack badly and I dont really like the trigger action and have on a few occasions found them really hard to get out of a placement when overcammed.

Plus for me, I'd say its rare that I do a route on a rock-type these are better on where I would rely on their added security; On peak lime I rarely rely on cams, Pembroke I think is rough enough for normal cams, slate - I havent climbed on in years and rarely used cams on anyway. Though maybe if you were only going to trad climb on peak/yorkshire lime they'd be a good choice (money would be better spent on petrol to better crags).

I use all the normal basics and then switch to dragons for green upwards as the red basic is about the same size as a purple dragon. Can't remember the last time I had any gear rip on me... but there have been lots of times Ive been glad to have basics.

Thats just my 2p though Will, you seem to like them...

EDIT: Just saw the pics of those totems in flares which are impressive. Though Id still be sh*tting myself above them! I also have a couple of friends who love them - both for free but especially for aid.

[dr_botnik]

I think there's 2 negatives to the totems; they don't have cam stops and they don't extend. Granted camelots don't extend either, but I find the lack of camstops unnerving.
Once a friend actually snipped the trigger wires because the cam lobes over extended and sliced the wires. A rare event and would probably cause removal problems more than out else, but it does give me pause for thought.
Still, there's some placements I would rather totems than anything else.

[slackline]

Cam Comparison - Range by Manufacturer/Model (free axes) by slack---line, on Flickr

I made progress towards getting this working as a web-page using R excellent package Shiny but life then got in the way.

Someone else has picked up the same data and done it (looks like they've used Shiny/R too)...

Cam Comparison