Have you done it?
How frequently?
Who did you use? Experiences?

Some net searching hasn't revealed any recent threads on the subject. I know about:
Fish
Mountain Tools
Yates - doesn't do cams older than 10 years and no tri cams
BD - only does their own brand
Mountain Gear - no longer

I had Yates resling a bunch of my cams a few years back. Some were > 10 years old. I was very happy with the work - they had a whole slew of options (though no dyneema yet then).

Just had my set of Camalots reslung by BD for the first time. All but one are older generation single stem cams that are anywhere from 4-8 years old. I have one newer C4 and had it reslung, too, just so they all have the same anniversary. $5 per, plus $5 for postage, which seems very reasonable. Quick turn-around (less than 3 weeks.) The replacement nylon webbing on the cams appears identical to the original material and colors, something I haven't always seen from other companies.

I sent my full set of Metolius cams (TCUs, FCUs) off for reslinging by the manufacturer. The results were spectacular -- in addition to reslinging them, Metolius totally reconditioned the cams (cleaned, polished, lubed). It was like getting back brand-new cams. They look so pretty I haven't had the heart to lead with them and get them dirty, heh heh.

The price was hard to beat too -- $3 each. Don't know if they do this on other manufacturers' cams.

JL

Same experience here with Metolius. They polish the cam lobes so they look like chrome! I can only imagine what they'd do to the engine on a vintage hot rod.

I haven't gotten any redone, but use BW Titan cord. Two loops so it can be extended like other dual-loop webbing. I cut off about 2" of the old webbing and pass the cord through so it retains the color coding. Works with older cams have a solid stem, not a loop like the new C4. I've read you shouldn't do it with cams with loops because the cord is too thin and doesn't distribute the force across a larger section, not sure if that makes a difference or not.

I had a bunch done by Mountain Tools some years ago. Nothing fancy like Metolius apparently provides, but very satisfactory work.

I've had Camalots reslung by BD. They did good work, but it did take a couple of months.

JDW

I've had Metolius resling my TCU's... they did a great job, and quick.

I've had BD resling many cams and they've done a great job (and I do it during a stormy season (late Nov-early Dec) and it will probably only take 2-3wks from the time I send them to the time I got them back. They also fixed a couple trigger wires that were frayed replaced free of charge (and I din't even ask them to do it) but I won't say they'd do that in the future again.

I've been doing some checking - Yates and Mtn Tools will do any brand and both say a shop time of one to two days. As I mentioned in my OP, Black Diamond only does their own brand. Of course for me there's no shipping to/from BD.

Marc, if you're getting U-stem Camalots reslung, I'd definitely go with BD. I remember having an extended conversation with a dude at Yates about that - they weren't happy putting dyneema on it. BD will probably reproduce the original double layer of nylon.

Honestly, tho, unless you're talking an Indian Creek number of 0.5s and 0.75s, I'd just buy a few new ones. The single stem really is that much better.

Does this mean you're going to start placing gear again, and so you won't have to talk about it hypothetically any more? ;P

Wise ass! There's lots of local stuff that requires placements and I have a trip to Red Rocks in November. I understand not all the routes there are bolted.

<crusty cranky old-timer persona>
Just remember, I was placing cams before you were born, kid! Once you get enough leading experience, you don't need to use a piece of gear on dozens of pitches to know if you'll like using it or not. Often you can tell that in the shop.
</crusty cranky old-timer persona>

Gee, Marc, I've only been leading and placing cams since 10+ years now. I wait can't until someone decides I'm good enough to think for myself ...

< / cranky condescended-to persona >

I've been meaning to post about this for a couple days but didn't get time until now... A long while back Mal@Trango posted a caution on RC re: putting single thickness slings (extendable loops) onto cams that normally have a double thickness of material over the loop (BD and Metolius come to mind). The reason being that those cams supposedly use a slightly narrower cable for the loop and the extra layer is intentionally put there to help keep it from slicing through when loaded.

I have no reason to not take Mal at his word, but for anyone else these pics are from a 0.75 C4 I broke on the puller over the weekend. The sling failed just above the cam's rating, but as you can see the inner flap was almost completely cut through. Had it not been there I suspect the cable would have sliced the sling at a much lower force, but at the moment I have no data on that.







Side note- The other three I broke all failed by way of the cable separating under/inside the sling attachment, but the inner flap on all of them showed minor cutting/tearing on the edges. Oh, and in case you were wondering all three were above rating.

I was discussing this with one of the guys at my local gear shop. He brought up that BD did a test that supposedly showed that Trango-style double loops are much much weaker. Same guy had some choice words to say about certain independent Alien testing though... something about improper metric conversions?

I am waiting for the day when there will be a suitable replacement for Aliens, unfortunately it looks like Master Cams aren't it and C3's are probably weaker than Aliens just by virtue of having 3 lobes instead of 4.

Yeah, I screwed the pooch on the roughness conversion... Doesn't change the fact there were clear manufacturing defects though, and if the guys at your local shop choose to ignore that fact, well, that's their choice. They seemed quite receptive to the testing when I was there doing it, but I suppose CCH conviced them otherwise. One of these days I'll get a chance to revisit the issue using the newly retextured fixture and pile of Aliens I have sitting here, but I've got a couple months of life to get caught back up on.

Anyway....

"Strength" is a somewhat imprecise term, since there are various modes of failure, many of which are unrelated to the number of cams, and failure in the field is also related to both how the cam configuration fits and adapts to the rock and what type of pivoting and walking characteristics are at play.

I have neither data nor theory, but I doubt that C3's are weaker than Aliens in any practical sense. The fact that C3's can be placed in many places that won't take Aliens renders the question at least sometimes moot.

Well, in that other thread, you took the position that a particular brand/style of cam was insecure because of its design. I suggested that you placed those cams expecting them to behave identically to a different brand/style of cam that you were more familiar with, and that's the real reason why they didn't work as well for you. That kind of expectation about gear is possibly the result of inexperience or not critically analyzing the placement from a mechanical engineering perspective.

BTW, I have about 25 years on you in cam placements. A friend with similar experience is still basically incapable of using an engineering perspective to analyze placements and to this day is still befuddled by tri-cams, so no worries.

So Marc: your total inexperience with Aliens doesn't count against your opinion of them, but my inexperience with C3s renders me an idiot incapable of assessing them?

It is, in fact, my engineering training that allows me to recognize that a 3-cam unit is inherently more rotationally unstable than a 4-cam unit.

It is my common sense that tells me that attaching a rigid rod to the end of that 3-cam unit, as opposed to a flexible stem on a 4-cam unit, will transmit more rope movement to said cam.

Please present your engineering analysis to the contrary: prove that C3s don't rotate any more than Aliens, and prove that rigid stems make no difference.

I'm not going to step down to your level in implying that I am "befuddled". I'm not going to stoop to your "I'm an old fart so I'm better than you", either. I will, however, point out that despite noting these limitations to the design of C3s, I went out and tested them in the field anyway, while you tossed off Aliens from one paw.

I'm so glad I'm not as closed-minded as you. And, again, how long's it been since you placed gear? 10 years? The only person befuddled here is you (and I'm saying that as a neuroscientist).

Ditto:

IMHO they have been that much safer since the first generation of SS Camalots. Softening the lobes and making them wider sold me right away and I haven't seen anything to change that assessment. Eliminating the sling cutting U (which Chris Harmston publicized in his time) was just an added benefit.