Dane

The TD, ED, EDsup thing is Euro grading. These guys are Amurkins And someone was sure to ask them, "how hard!?" But a 8000 meter peak with a 12,000+ foot face is something all together different. No translation past "alpine" needed. 4100m, M5/5.9, WI4 really translates to very high, very long, very cold and very dangerious up and down. No sleep for days, dehydration, little food and not a whole lot of air for the last 10,000 feet of the climb. So 12,000+ vertical feet, M5-5.9X, WI5 and I would suspect thousands of feet of both difficult rock and ice all in big boots, crampons strapped on, lots of clothes but never really enough to be warm and a pack carrying all that is needed to survive while out and about for 8 days. It should be a given on this rouute but that X means if you fall you'll most likely die, rope or not. I have done a couple of the "easier" Rockies alpine climbs @ 5.9 WI4 and had way, way more fun than I really wanted. I have no idea what these guys have done or how to apply that rating past..."damn hard, really scary and really, really long". Pretty cool route isn't it? http://www.russianclimb.com/nanga_house_2005.html Hard to get a rating in the Rockies past 5.9 A2 or the newest version the Rockies "standard" M6 WI5. Best way to appreciate any alpine rating is get up one and then "study" your thoughts on the accomplishment.

Hey GB, no I didn't. By the time I hooked up with Martin I had actually forgotten that the stock inner could be heated and molded. What made me nervious (and forgetful) on that was Sportiva didn't have an authorised fitter in the US and even less info on how to do it right. I climbed a bit of ice in the stock inner boots and could have used them as is for easy climbing and slogs. But what I really wanted was a tight fitting inner for technical terrain. The Intution inner solved that for me with the added benefit of some more warmth and no need to crank the inner laces.

Sorry I can't offer anything on that one. I added the liner for fit, not warmth. Guys are using the stock boots in Canada's winter conditions, on Denali in the spring without over boots and all over the Himalaya. FWIW the Spantik is the warmest dbl boot I have used by a good margin. I wouldn't have added the extra liners if I had a better fit.

My second picture shows the angle of the picks when the handles are lined up as in your last model. It is an apples to apples comparison. Instead of being such an unpleasant prick how about adding something to the discussion past more erroneous info, personal attacks and rehashing the same info?

This is real.. When you line up the handles this is what the picks look like.. BD has a good deal less drop in the pick and the resulting sharper radius in top reverse curve. The BD pick in your over lay shows a good bit of Petzl pick below it. The overlay is not accurate but gives a reasonable view. Reverse your overlay and I suspect you'll see how the angle of the picks differ in use. Sometimes it is a lot easier to just use the real thing. Funny that, currently three engineers, two machinists and one metallurgist fine little fault in what I have posted or my thought process on how to better a pick, any pick. Most of that same info has been common knowledge in the climbing community for the last 20 years, so no big surprise.

tvash, I would disagree on most, if not all, of your comments and conclusions on this thread. But then I have a lot more detail on the tools than I have bothered to publish in this thread so it should be no surprise. One thing we can agree on is that Petzl makes a nice line of tools. I own and climb on several versions myself. If your cut and pastes efforts are intended to champion the Petzl as a superior tool you won't get a rise from me. If you can't visually verify the obvious design and finish differences in the two company's picks, how can you hope to add anything useful to the discussion past the "atta boy" for Petzl? My pictures show the true pick angles and are taken to highlight the differences in angles between the two tools. 30 seconds with the actual tools in hand will clearly show those differences. Your over lay is not correct. More importantly actually using both tools as intended will quickly show you there is a difference in performance. Outside the photos, most of my comments are no more than personal observation and my own speculation, YMMV of course. Take a look at an actual over lay and decide for yourself if the differenece at the shaft and pick angles will be important to you. Climbing, like many things is life, is all about the details and knowing when they are important and when they aren't. For most of us none of this will matter climbing ice. To figure out how to improve the design, BD or Petzl, it is the details that will count. When you line up the shaft on each tool this is the position of the picks.

I’ve done a little more research over the past week. Obviously it is going to take a lot more. I’d believe, as Bill Belcourt mentioned, that the Petzl Cascade pick is somewhere around 20% more durable than the standard Laser on the BD tools. A choice BD intentionally makes for higher performance on the Lazer pick. Look at the BD Titan pick and strength is simply added by using more material. BD doesn't give away anything in durablity with the Titan. We can all argue that BD performance edge but until any of us start doing those cutting edge routes our personal choice in tools isn't really important past our own pocket books. I’d also guess that the number of failures we have seen on this post are time in market and market share issues more than having a bad product @ BD. But it is only a guess and any product can be improved. But how strong is “strong enough” and where does a pick need to be? The current perception in the market place alone says BD could improve their pick durability. Although the picks seem very similar in design they are not. The current version of the Quark and Cobra handles, however, are.. So you can leave the older handle designs and past pick failures out of the equation. Lets look at just the newest tool/pick designs. Some of the most obvious of my observations: The BD Lazer is thinner and shorter in height at the front of pick than the Petzel Cascade. That alone should make the BD Lazer less durable. The BD picks also have a much deeper bevel on the upper side of the pick, again less material, less durable. But the flip side, every thing being equal, the BD pick should have better penetration just by having less volume. The BD picks all have fewer teeth on the underside of the pick. That should make the picks more durable because they have less stress risers from the teeth being cut. Petzl has more teeth and because of it more stress risers. But the Petzel picks are using a bigger diameter cut at all the pick teeth so the stress riser is smaller on each tooth notch. Petzl is grinding the lower edge of the pick at a sharper angle and again lowering the influence of the tooth grind on durability. BD makes a light grind in the same area with little or no influence on the surface area of the teeth. The bigger the grind here, the less the teeth bite, the easier the pick cleans and the less leverage/force the pick will see. And then there is the steel used, both picks are Rc spec’ed between 40/44. BD is lazer cutting from 4340 plate and Petzl is forging from (unknown to me) Chrome moly. Both are using various levels of hand finishing. My observations and price points would seem to confirm Petzl is doing the most hand finishing. From what I have seen even with all the nuances on the pick material, manufacture and design I think the most telling difference is the angle of attack on the BD pick compared to the Petzl Quark. The Quark has a much steeper pick angle than the Cobra. That makes for a slightly different swing between the two. There are people at every level of climbing who prefer one manufacture’s design over the other. BD is intentionally addressing differing skill levels and conditions by handle design in their tools. My take is Petzl is intentionally addressing differing conditions more than skill level with their line of tools. Each is a sound marketing plan. Skill level also needs to be considered in any survey results. If you have the largest market share, with dbl the service life as your competitors and you have a huge margin of failures over your nearest competitor on a list like this but your R&D team's feed back shows almost zero failure over a 4 year period something else is obviously happening that has not been identified yet. More research, field documentation and some finite element analysis to come I hope. Everyone has used a claw hammer to pull a nail with varying degrees of success. IMO the tighter arc on the BD reverse curve is causing a fulcrum point in the area of tooth 3 to 6 where upward leverage will break the BD pick sooner than the straighter angles and less leverage of the Petzl pick. Add bigger stress risers in that same area and less material and the end result would seem painfully obvious. But just how strong is “strong enough”. I’ve had email exchanges with some of the sponsored BD climbers and quizzed them on their own pick breakage. The newest BD tools with current production and unmodified picks are just not breaking with that group of climbers. Yes they are wearing out picks by climbing a lot of mixed. But I have yet to hear of a broken pick from that small group. If that changes I'll post the info. Hard to believe just how complicated our little "battle axes" really are But a closer looks shows there is a lot going on.

In the past I had spent a few years working retail in ski and climbing shops. After my FF experience I had the impression the Intuition would work if it could be fit better. All it should take is some serious hands on experience, additional fit kits, insoles and tools to do it right. Far as I know Sturtevants is the only place locally with the shop tools and fit kits that a good boot fitter would require. I have a foot that is difficult to fit..long feet and a really narrow heel, so nothing drastic if the fitter knows what they are doing. On my first visit to Sturtevants the place was jammed and it took three hours. That visit got me $100 custom insole and some fit parts. Pretty much like the FF experience I knew it wasn't going to work after walking around in them a few minutes at home. Thankfully I met Martin on the second trip and he was able to take the time required to get it done right including a new insole. The price of the original insole was refunded in full as well. All the local shops, FF, Marmot and Sturtevants have great staff. FF in particular has fit up many, many pairs of Intuition inner boots over the years for happy climbing customers. We all spend serious time in our boots. Just wanted to point out Martin as the guy if want your boots fitted perfectly.

I don't get the best fit in Sportivas but wanted the best dbl boot I could find. The Sportiva Spantik solves the second problem with some aplumb. A decent fit for me takes some extra work. I first had a young lady fit me with Intuition inner boots @ Feathered Friends. The fit ended up so bad I couldn't use them and they were returned with no hassles. Several months later I tried again at Sturtevants in Bellevue. Turns out that Martin, who is the boot fitting manager, is a climber and skier. He took the time (well over an hour) to give me a perfect fit in the Spantiks. They also are the largest seller of Intuition inner boots in the country, fitting something like 600 pair a year. I am not the first to come up with the idea of an Intuition liner in a Sportiva Spantik I had the chance to talk gear with "Big Wall" Pete Takeda yesterday. He has been using that same combo to over 7000m and highly recommneded the same combo. If you are like me and have fit problems in any climbing or ski boot I can't recommend Martin @ Sturtevants in Bellevue highly enough.

I have no clue what the costs to BD were on the AerMet picks, just repeating the numbers I was given. They may not be exact but I have no reason to doubt the big price differences. Or BD underwriting a pick no one would buy at the actual manufacturing price. I suspect we'll see an AerMet pick return (from some source and may be not BD) with a justifiably healthy price tag attached.

Hi Paul, This is worth addressing and good to see someone remembers;) I'm familiar with the issues of manufacturing from AerMet 100 and 310. So that was part of the discussion with Belcourt. The production/tooling costs are extremely high for such exotic steels and the material costs are also higher than the norm. Bill's comment was the cost of the AriMet pick to them was $110...which wholesaled to dealers @ $60. Easy to see why that social service program didn't last long. But then that was the days of $20 picks and now the going rate is $35 from BD and $45 from Petzel or Grivel. So I suspect there might well be some room at a much higher price point for the right customer. If sales can justify it. Bill's comments were something like this: "AriMet produced a pick with incredible durability. They would stay sharp a long time no matter the climbing terrain, and because of that get used in harsh conditons even longer. Right up to the time they broke. But no question they did have a longer life cycle." (I bought the last dozen BD AriMet picks ever produced yesterday, Gladd's returns I hear ) "They also were so hard that none of our guys liked them for hard mixed climbing. The steel would skate off holds, instead of "grab", which the current steel and heat treat does." Remember the swing to hard mixed was just getting started in 1999/2000/2001. Ice tool sales were about to boom. But a pick that wouldn't mix climb well was a dead horse...no matter the cost. New steels and current R&D might well give us another chance at a pick that will do "everything". Oh, and Trash...ah, never mind...

So many questions and so little actual data posted in the comments. We are touching on so many issues and none of them in the detail they require. First off the numbers posted are relavant. 20 years of picks that go on a current Cobra means (like some of the posts here) that older picks are clearly still being used and broken. BD owns the majority market share in the US. Take a look at 2nd Ascents used wall if you want to see just how true that is. Belcourt discussed quite openly with me the design changes of 2000/2002. I wrote a more detailed post about that last night and still missed some of the details. It is in quotes at the bottom. The actual failure rate for BD and Grivel is less than 1%. For the reading challenged, and to Belcourt's credit, he readily admitted that Petzel picks were up to 20% more durable than a BD pic, becasue BD has intentionally designed their picks to a higher performance standard. Again...BD has decided to use a smaller cross section and width than Petzel. No secret why the Petzl picks are more durable, first and formost, less metal on them. IMO another factor is BD cuts their picks from plate instead of hot forging. But forging can be argued as well over current steel quality and heat treats. We're all climbers here, we can debate "performance standards" all day long. Maybe Trash and Will Gladd want the ultimate in performance. Trash's performance might well be different that Gladd's newest M12. I'm willing to make a few trade offs every time I pick from my quiver. Key here is we all have a "quiver" to choose from Trash, let's not be obtuse, any metal part can be tested to failure even if you go outside the design spec to do so. Testing to failure is part of manufaturing. But modern tools are designed to have disposable picks, so breaking one isn't outside the design is it? Charlet/Petzl and Quark pics and their date of manufacture? Again so I don't send every minute writing about picks, read between the lines here. Quarks have been around since the winter of 2001? The Quark design came as a redesign from the other Charlet/Moser tools that were great tools but less than durable in some instances. Broken handles/heads were a probelm at Charlet/Moser (later Petzl) during that same time (2000/2002) as they were problems for BD and lesser so for Grivel. No ten year old picks being sold as new and getting bolted to a Quark. So you get the Quark in 2001, T rated shaft and a hot forged pick in both B and T ratings. The Quark was the state of the art IMO as a water fall tool until the newest designs from Grivel and BD show up most recently. But by now the sport has changed a lot at the cutting edge. State of the art could be argued by those same guys actually at the cutting edge of ice tool use. Take a look at what Twight, Backes and House took up the Czech Direct back in the day. Curved handles on an alpine route..who would have thought? Take a look what Slawinski, Gladd, House, Anderson, Owens and Walsh use now. Those guys are climbing as hard as anyone on alpine and mixed. Trust me they can be climbing on free tools from any company they choose. I would suspect they all use what they know will get them up climbs. But in the current climbing industry I've no doubt there is at least a small finacial incentive as well. Three tool suppliers and all have been up some "state of the art" routes. It is public knowledge that Grivel and BD has broken picks with sponsored climbers I haven't heard anything on the Petzel side. Might well be just the fact that Petzl isn't as high profile. But who knows...our survey doesn't seem to show that. Finally my comments on BD picks partly from the conversation with Belcourt yesterday and some pure speculation on my part about the previous generation of shaft and pick angles (not pick design). Only time will tell if the current shaft designs help the picks hold up any better. Next comment I'll have on the subject will be after some field testing next week.

The numbers I posted above and some of the info that was posted by others just didn't make a lot of sense to me. I work with steel every day in a different arena and still climb so I was interested in getting a better look at the real picture of ice tools and breakage of pics. I ended up talking with Bill Belcourt who is "the" guy for R&D at BD. He was also the guy who was head of design on their newest tools. I only know him by reputation. But with early ascents of the North Butt of Hunter and super quick ascent of Huntington among others and starting Grivel NA with Twight I know he's a guy who is going to tell it straight up...good or bad. As I expected "our" numbers don't tell the real story. First thing to clarify is the BD has been using the same pick attachment since '88. That is 20 years of picks out there that you can still bolt right on to a new Cobra. Anything...used enough.. will wear out..it's call fatique life or cycle life. Basically if it is steel, bend it enough and it will break. Oldest Quark pick is what, 8 years old? A good example is Paulb's broken pick posted above, a manufacturing date of around 10 years by pick design but easily bought only 5 years ago. It happens. All the "newer" BD picks have a 4 number production date stamped on them. The first number is the year of manufacture. The other 3 is day of year. Check the manufature dates on your picks. I have some that are old enough that there are no date codes. And I have some "new" B rated Titan picks I bought used made in '02. There is no easily way to tell the differenece between '02 and '07 beyound date stamp. Good news is there is no difference in manufacture between these '02 picks and the '08 pick. Bad news is there were minor changes through the years on tooth design, pick thickness and width. Just not since '02 Things changed a lot between 2000 and 2002...first years for some really hard mixed climbing by a big % of the ice climbing community. Picks (and tools) had to be redesigned because of it. More good news, failure rate of both BD and Grivel picks...'cuz Bill had the numbers from Grivel as well, is between .05 and .07%, which is extremely good. Most companies just want to get to a 1% failure rate and 5% is not unacceptable for others. It should be obvious by now that BD has a huge market share to show the numbers broken here. And they do. More tools out there...more picks out there for a 20 year period. Do the numbers you are bound to see some broken picks. Finally, the BD picks are currently lazer cut from 4340 Chromoly steel plate, then bevels ground specific to pick model, heat treated and then black oxided. No hot or cold forging involved. And to his credit Bill was willing to admit that the current Petzl pick was more durable in fatique testing. But he admitted that what the BD design intentionally gave up in durability it gains in performance..ie easier sticks, easier cleaning and better performance on mixed. The one thing we didn't talk about. I watched a dozen climbers queue at the last tier of Polar Circus this winter. Although I have climbed that route 4 times in the distant past I have never seen so many ice climbers out and about as we do today. Climbing in general is easier..because of better gear and better training or the most part. Ice climbing is even easier still for all the same reasons. We as climbers demand a lot. The tools are so much better today that they were even 10 years ago and you have no idea unless you were there when you go back 30. I wanted this info for me. I wanted to know what currently the "best" tool was. By one measure that means what is the most reliable. By another it is which tool has the features you most want for that particular climb. For another it is the one that makes WI5 the easiest for them. We see an ever increasing varity of tools. All of which offer different specific features. Only reason that happens is there are enough climbers with pocket books big enough to pay for R&D and buy what comes out every season. The vast majority in the current climbing scene want a tool that climbs water ice easily or is hell for stout for hard bolted mixed. A few dinosaurs like myself want a tool that will climb well every where and not break. Tough audience for any manufacture. Guess I 'll worry more about it when i break my first pic

These puppies have been hard to find for some time. Patagonia doesn't make them every year. If you know what they are and want one, Zappo.com had a few in both and men's LG and XL as of last night. As of today Patagonia.com and Patagonia in DT Seattle has them again. If you don't know what the R1 hoody is...it is an awesome piece of alpine climbing clothing for $130. Most give it rave reviews for everything from trail running to 8000m peaks. Hit the hot link below to learn more but I wouldn't wait long. http://www.psychovertical.com/?r1hoody

These puppies have been hard to find for some time. If you know what they are and want one, Zappo.com had a few in both and men's LG and XL as of last night. http://www.zappos.com/gs/patagonia-mens-r1andreg-hoody-black-activewear-1.shtml If you don't know what the hoody is...it is an awesome piece of alpine climbing clothing. Hit the hot link below to learn more but I wouldn't wait long. http://www.psychovertical.com/?r1hoody

Thanks, got a source you can quote for your "cold forging" comments at BD? Looking at the production dates is interesting. Glad Simond was brought up. I have a Chacal and Barracuda that has done a bunch of Canadian, Alaskan and NW ice and still on the original picks. A bit worn but still usable. If I counted correctly here is the current score just from this post. Black Diamond 39 broken Simond 8 broken Grivel 7 broken Petzl 1 broken (edited for clarity)

Mind citing a source for your info on Petzl? The difference in grain structure and strength is dramatic between cold "forged" and actualy hot forged steel. The same reason you don't see quality knives made by cold forging. A "cold forged" knife would be simply ground from "bar stock". Hot forged picks can be made thinner (which is the grain structure adding strength) and still resist bending (which is the heat treat). more here: http://www.forging.org/facts/faq9.htm Ya, I bet they say that alot around the warrenty shop at BD Add mixed climbing and you are easily way past 300#. If the accounts are correct there is a obvious stress riser on the pick. I haven't posted my 2nd hand info on recent broken picks. I'll add up what has been posted later. May be it isn't obvious but I seem to see a pattern Grivel has 1 BD has 10 Petzl 0

I've seen them filed past recognition and still working but never broken. Anyone ever seen a broken a Petzl/Charlet Moser pick?

Chrome moly steel can be had in many forms. It is not all the same. The biggest differences however in picks is the use of CNC plate cutting techniques on the chrome moly and then heat treated to spec or chrome moly hot forgings, heat treated to spec and then hand finished. This is a good short course in steel and manufacturing. http://www.grivelnorthamerica.com/technology.php?gid=1 Easy to guess the one company of the top three tool makers who doesn't use forged picks. There is a small amount of difference in the stress risers incorporated into each company's pick by tooth design. The two design/manufacturing do add up.

In the years I've ice climbed I have to admit I have never broken a pick. My wife tells me I am a gentle guy I have however broken tools. Snapped a head off one while soloing grade 4 with no second tool. Which scared the shit out of me. Bent and straightened more picks than I care to count all the way back to Chouinard Piolets, Terrodactyls and Roosters. More recently I have done the same on modern Grivel and Petzl tools while using our other tools as the hammer and anvil. I had become satisfied with carrying a full size spare tool on everything but the "easiest" road side crags, until this winter anyway. Hadn't climbed seriously in a while and never thought to bother with a spare, third matching tool...too much money. (I'd like a "matching" tool these days since there are so many options.) But wanting to climb hard again I once more started soloing, wanting to get my chit squared away and that thought (carrying a spare did come up) So I know my personal experience and that of the guys I have discussed the topic with. Let's talk about what tools/picks you have actually seen broken or broken yourself? Stories only if the source was truly credible to you Secondly, for anyone who has broken a pick...could you or did you "save" it by reshaping the shorter pick with a file. My thought is most broken picks snap one or two teeth in and could be reshaped easily in route and reused on even difficult ice. Thoughts? Experiences? And thanks!

I've used mine a couple of times now. Ventilation is a good thing....the designers and owner of the company even stresses about it in person. I have timed boils...amazingly fast. No durability issues yet but I have been careful with mine to this point. I'll know more after the first "hard knock" trip. First stove I have used that makes me think you can actually stay hydrated on an alpine climb if you have snow around. For my own use every bit the stove an XGK is. Also very good on fuel consumption if you heat water and then turn it off. You'll use and waste a lot of fuel if you leave in on since there is virtually no control between off and full on. Annoying there is no lighter attached. (forgot) There is a hanging kit coming but easy enough to make...and you should take the time to compared to a Jetboil for melting water. Bigger pot and fast boil time on the MSR.

Just more fyi. The standard picks on the Cobra is pretty thin but still not as thin as the standard pick on a Quark, too lazy to mic them again to be specific. Quark pick is truely forged the BD isn't. (I work with forged parts on a daily basis so take that FWIW) But forged picks really are a better part for an ice tool. My limited experience is the Quark drives easier. (thinner pick.. in cold hard ice) Typical ice not a lot of difference between the two besides balance. BD picks have a serious habit of breaking at inopportune times. One guy in Canmore has a basket of 8 broken picks I was told. Josh broke two on the lower part of GC Couloir this winter. With a quiver of tools for me to choose from, Chad pointed out what is important to me on some routes, "changing picks on the BD tools is a dream compared to the Quarks." Changing picks isn't a big deal at a road side attraction but gets a little troublesome off the road and on longer alpine routes. Climbing hard, long, alpine routes requires 1 of 3 plans: Don't break or drop anything...if you do you share what is left. You can carring an extra tool or tools. Or you carry extra picks and know you can change them on route. All the tools we are discussing climb very well with just a bit of difference in head balance and handle sizes. Everything else being pretty equal the deciding factors for me are how easily umbilicals tie/untie, how durable the pics are and most importantly how far off the road I'll be.

This might put our discussion of modern mixed tools on hard alpine routes into perspective. http://www.grivelnorthamerica.com/headlines.php?id=50 "Steve with his trusty Quantum Monsters on Mount Alberta"

Thanks I hadn't seen it either. Although the Canmore rumor was House and Anderson was there just for Alberta. Amazing winter season (even if this one was just out) Temple a couple of times, Chephren, Andromeda, GC on Kitchner and Alberta. A winter ascent of Alberta was on several tick lists. Next one will likely be Twin in winter. Man talk about some big steps up in the last couple of years...wow! Glad they sounded sorta like normal mortals in the write up.....well sorta anyway Some pretty amazing climbing done in cold, harsh conditions. even with the "new" hut.

I am a 45 in the Batura (runs bigger than the Nepals more like a Trango) and a very tight 45 in the Nepal Evo. 46 in the Spantik with a liner and a boot sox. 45.5 was too short. Buddy is a 45.5 in the Trango extreme (which runs large) and a 46.5 in the Spantik. A option if you really want to square away sizing order what you think will fit add one size + and - from Zappos and return what doesn't fit, free shipping both ways and quick refund back to your CC.