Head Width
The Fat Cams head is almost twice as wide as the equivalent sized C4 or Mastercam. A narrower head width generally makes a cam easier to place since you can slide the cam into smaller constrictions or into old pin scars…which begs the question of why? Why would Metolius intentionally make the head width greater on the Fat Cams?
Best Use
If you’re confused about why Fat Cams are still on the market, well good on you for being skeptical. Everything I’ve said about them so far suggests they are inferior to almost every other cam on the market. But not so fast.
Much like how offset cams are primarily a specialty piece for aid climbing or placements in old pin scars, the Fat Cams are a specialty piece for protecting the singular and unique cracks found in the desert, most notably at Indian Creek.
Sandstone is by nature generally a softer rock than granite, basalt, or limestone, and the Wingate layer that makes climbing in Indian Creek so beautiful and difficult is actually on the more solid side of the sandstone spectrum. The Navajo sandstone found closer to Moab, as well as the sandstone around Zion National Park, is even softer than the Wingate layer. As a softer stone, sandstone of all types erodes faster than granite, especially when subjected to repeated jamming, cam placements, and falls.
One only needs to look at the Incredible Hand Crack to get a sense of the impact climbing has on the rock. In the forty years since the first ascent, the crack has widened from perfect gold Camalots to slightly under-cammed gold Camalots. On popular climbs such as Battle of the Bulge, Rock Lobster, or Way Rambo, there are obvious blown-out pods where the rock has eroded faster from repeated lead falls.
All this brings up the obvious question of how can we as a climbing community better protect the precious and limited resource of Indian Creek?
The Access Fund, Friends of Indian Creek, and the Rocky Mountain Field Institute (among others too numerous to name) have put an incredible amount of time and effort into building trust with the BLM and the Dugout Ranch to ensure continued access to climbing; spent countless man-hours constructing trails to all the walls in the canyon; and worked tirelessly to educate climbers on best practices to minimize our impact on the land. But all their efforts are in vain if the rock itself degrades.
Which is where Fat Cams come in. Because the lobes are so much wider, the force of a lead fall is transmitted to the rock across a larger surface area inside the crack. The larger surface area of load prevents the lobes from biting into the rock quite so hard.
I have personally seen scars in the rock when I have cleaned non-Fat Cams that I have taken lead falls on. Multiply the number of lead falls I’ve taken at Indian Creek (somewhere in the dozens) by the number of climbers (50 at the Second Meat Wall alone one weekend last fall), and it becomes clear why Fat Cams are a good idea.
In addition to reducing erosion, the dissipation of force across a larger surface area makes the cam less likely to blow out of a placement. Indian Creek is the only place I’ve ever blown a cam placement during a lead fall because of rock failure. With the larger surface area of the Fat Cam, placements are even less likely to fail in a fall, giving me just a little more peace of mind when leading at my limit and pulling moves above my gear.
In a place where the rock is soft, the cracks parallel and uniform, and the impact of climbing noticeable, I believe it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of care and responsibility.
Am I suggesting that every desert rat and Creek climber replace their entire rack with Fat Cams? Absolutely not, that’d be both expensive and wasteful of all those C4’s, Mastercams, and TCU’s we’ve accumulated. But I am advocating the use of Fat Cams to protect crux sections where falls are more likely.
Bottom Line
Fat Cams are not for everyone, or for every climb. For those who mostly climb on granite or other hard rocks, the Fat Cams are overkill, and will ultimately cause more headache because they’re harder to place in finicky and non-uniform cracks.
But for those of us who spend significant time in the desert, and for whom Indian Creek holds a wild and pure place in our hearts, Fat Cams are an easy way for us to help protect the place we love.
I’m sure these have their uses, but it’s pretty hard to beat a wider expansion range in most cases…especially when you are nearing your limit.
It seems to me that is there is an *actual danger* of climbing areas being shut down because of rock erosion (which hasn’t happened in Yosemite, where many climbs only go free because of pin scars and so on), there is a clear, obvious answer. That answer is called TOP-ROPING. You cannot legislate *every climber* to use these, and they still aren’t gonna 100% reduce it anyways, so this is a pretty weak argument.
Sure, for the rich folks out there, why not have all the toys, a $6000 rack, to go with your 5-figure bike, your 6-figure car, your $1800 tent, and so on….. but most climbers I’ve ever known barely have doubles in the common sizes as it is….
Hi Alvin,
Thanks for the feedback.
I must admit I’m a little confused by your argument. At no point in the review did I suggest legislating the use of Fat Cams, I only suggested their practicality in specific situations. As to your example of Yosemite pin scars, climbers did actually lead the way in reducing rock damage by shifting away from pitons and towards clean climbing (see the 1972 Chouinard catalog), so the shift in protection that Fat Cams represent is not unprecedented. I don’t see a danger of the climbing in Indian Creek getting shut down because of bureaucratic reasons due to rock damage; I do however see a danger in climbs at the Creek changing drastically in character because of rock damage. For me, it’s about more than just, “can we climb here,” it’s about, “can we climb here in such a way as to make the experience the same for the next generation?”
I would argue that most climbers have a rack tailored to their favorite climbing area, for example you’d be hard-pressed to find a dedicated Yosemite climber who doesn’t use off-set cams, or a North Carolina climber who doesn’t use Tri-Cams. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to advocate (not legislate) for dedicated desert climbers to utilize Fat Cams in specific situations.
Cheers,
Matt