Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:02 am
Looks pretty bomber to me. I'd be more worried about it getting in the way.
Page 3 of 3
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:12 am
Maybe it's one of those pieces that you keep shoving up higher as you get closer to it.
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:51 pm
> If the cam face is only touching the rock on one edge of the cam lobes,
> I would not trust it.
I think Pete is touching on an important point here. I'm not willing to make the blanket statement that it is bomber if the face of the cams are in full contact.
> I would not trust it.
I think Pete is touching on an important point here. I'm not willing to make the blanket statement that it is bomber if the face of the cams are in full contact.
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:28 pm
really? I figure IF:
The cams lobes are in full contact with the rock, and
the lobes are neither over or under cammed, and
the rock quality is good, and
the piece wont fall out when jiggled,
Its good.
The cams lobes are in full contact with the rock, and
the lobes are neither over or under cammed, and
the rock quality is good, and
the piece wont fall out when jiggled,
Its good.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:56 am
If any of you guys see J.J. then be sure to ask him about the time he shat on a rattlesnake. It is hilarious! He tells the story much better than I could.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:58 am
hummm, the fronts are good in this position mainly because they will help hold in the back cams which, in this placement, will likley hold the vast majority of the fall, still this is where I wold be wishing CCH made a really freaking big offset alien
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:49 pm
You're all still forgetting the fact that JJ doesn't fall. I think he can just let go of the rock and hover. He just brings gear becuause its shiney. 
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:35 pm
J.J.'s gear is definitely not shiny. Antique (or homemade) might be a better word. 