Agreed. For me "trango ballnutz helpful" meant you're going to be way over your last piece of good gear-in the Nears.

This has led me to consider BallNutz in general. I haven't tried this, but think an #OO Metolius TCU will work in place of the largest sized ball nut. Might not even the smaller sized ball nuts be replaced by some of those really tiny cams that--who was it...Wild Country?--has produced?

Generally, when a ballnut is recommended, it's not because of the thinness of the crack, but the shallow depth - something too shallow for a cam.

I don't believe any small cams can replace the 2 smallest ball nutz, which are pefect for knifeblade piton cracks.

My experience is just the opposite (i.e. a Ball Nut requires a deeper crack to place it than the very small cams). Imagine the head of a small cam (say a blue or black alien) and the head of a Ballnut. The ball nut is much wider (deeper) in the plane that would go into the rock.

However, Ball Nuts are thinner than small cams in the plane that is parallel with the crack during placement, so they fit thinner cracks.

TS

Perhaps as likely is that the recommender happened to place a ballnut, and other options would also work?

I think Marc is right about shallow vertical cracks being more receptive to Ball Nuts, because the Ball Nut width is narrower than the head width of most cams, which would have to be placed in the bad perpendicular-to-the-rock orientation. But for horizontal cracks, I think one might, in general get a cam in a shallower placement than a Ball Nut.

Ball Nuts certainly won't go into knifeblade cracks, but the large and medium sizes compete with the smallest cams and are potentially a lot stronger, and the smallest size is down there with little brassies. It is true that Ball Nuts are very finicky to place, but the fact that a very small cam goes in easier and seems to stick when jerked on does not mean that it is any good for a fall either, and small brass placements, especially with the newer, (and I think over-hyped) offset shapes, are every bit as finicky.

When you start using any type of small gear for pro, you typically try for multiple placements and resign yourself to climbing in a zone that does not include comfort in its designation.

Are you talking about placements in horizontal or vertical cracks? I was thinking of the latter.

I was thinking of both in my head (although no doubt strongly influenced by the shallow and thin Gunks horizontals), but after thinking about it more, I need to go home and look at the small Aliens/Zeros, etc and Ball nuts and see which is smaller in the correct plane for your observation. I think I would have to agree with you RE vertical cracks, especially for the larger Ball nuts that one would use in non-aid situations, because one would need to include the thickness of the sliding half-circle+the head of the Ball nut. I would think that would be thicker than a black Alien or small WC Zero. Blue Alien might be close to equal ????

TS

Have led F&L at least 20 times gear is bomber on every placement. A little spaced in a few places but certainly safe. If you have nothing but a bad piece before the lower5.9 then you are certainly doing something wrong as there is great gear there. The gear at the crux is excellent but a little below your feet. You can't expect to have gear above you for every move otherwise it it would be nuetered like Arrow.

After thinking about this thread, I went back to F&L last Saturday to reexamine (and remember) the pro issues. Coppertone has it right. The first crux can be protected safely. If, like me, you don't carry BallNutz on your rack, there is a single move with gear at your feet at the second crux, but the hand holds are positive. The footwork at this point is delicate but the next positive hold requires only a step or two to reach (two for me, but I'm short.) It never felt like the potential consequences warranted an "R" rating.