New old offwidth gear....

[RuMR]

Anyone try these yet?

[billcoe]

Looks like big bros just got obsoleted Rudy, thanks for the heads up.

 

 

[boadman]

They look like they'd be kind of unstable, they're so skinny. I wonder why they never caught on back in the 80s when ABC was selling them? Maybe if you placed two of them next to each other.

[alexbaker]

Hmmm. Doing a quick comparison using some tech specs found at various places on the internet: (feel free to check, they could be wrong)

 

Gipsy........Max range: 205mm Weight: 485g

BD C4 #6.....Max Range: 195mm Weight: 557g

Big Bro # 3..Max Range: 203mm Weight: 263g

 

Things I noticed:

 

1. A gipsy is roughly twice as heavy as a big bro for a similar range.

2. A gipsy weighs about 2 light carabiners less than a BD #6 for a similar range.

 

This doesn't exactly scream innovation to me.

Edited August 5, 2011 by alexbaker

[G-spotter]

I remember these things being reviewed in R&I in the 90s and supposedly they weren't all that great back then. Not sure i remember why exactly but I think it's because they aren't springloaded. You might have to weight the biner with some other gear to keep them stable?

[jmace]

Get back to work, finish that paper

[layton]

i'm excited about the Kong Clack!

 

http://www.kong.it/doc/KONG_JOURNAL/KONG_journal_EN.10.01.pdf

[corvallisclimb]

i'm excited about the Kong Clack!

 

http://www.kong.it/doc/KONG_JOURNAL/KONG_journal_EN.10.01.pdf

 

for real!

[111]

I assume with the clack you still keep your shit on a string? It would be hard to trust just the magnet...

[billcoe]

Hmmm. Doing a quick comparison using some tech specs found at various places on the internet: (feel free to check, they could be wrong)

 

Gipsy........Max range: 205mm Weight: 485g

BD C4 #6.....Max Range: 195mm Weight: 5576g

Big Bro # 3..Max Range: 203mm Weight: 263g

 

Things I noticed:

 

1. A gipsy is roughly twice as heavy as a big bro for a similar range.

2. A gipsy weighs about 2 light carabiners more than a BD #6 for a similar range.

 

This doesn't exactly scream innovation to me.

 

I'd figured that they were even lighter than Bros, so thanks for that heads up.

 

The Raccoon has left the building.

[layton]

i checked it out at the OR show. It was buried in the back, no tags, anything. There wasn't a place to test it. I think if it places easier than a big bro (which shouldn't be hard to pull off) and is more compact than a valley giant, it would be a worthwhile piece of gear...if it actually works.

 

and I was joking about the clack

Edited August 5, 2011 by layton

[corvallisclimb]

and I was joking about the clack

 

I is seriouse. It will acctually be quite usefull for on-lead bolting applications and such, I will be rocking the Clack for sure!!!!

[G-spotter]

Hmmm. Doing a quick comparison using some tech specs found at various places on the internet: (feel free to check, they could be wrong)

 

Gipsy........Max range: 205mm Weight: 485g

BD C4 #6.....Max Range: 195mm Weight: 5576g

Big Bro # 3..Max Range: 203mm Weight: 263g

 

Things I noticed:

 

1. A gipsy is roughly twice as heavy as a big bro for a similar range.

2. A gipsy weighs about 2 light carabiners more than a BD #6 for a similar range.

 

This doesn't exactly scream innovation to me.

 

I'd figured that they were even lighter than Bros, so thanks for that heads up.

 

The Raccoon has left the building.

 

Even assuming you means 576 g (just over a pound) for a c4#6 and not 5576 g (~eleven pounds), a gipsy is lighter than a #6, not the other way round by the numbers you post but you then say the opposite. your math doesn't add up in any way, shape or form.

 

also note billcoe took these numbers as straight dope and posted them, errors and all, on a bunch of other places round the internet.

 

 

[alexbaker]

Thanks G-Spotter. I edited my post so it actually makes reasonable sense.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2011 by alexbaker