Tested to destruction: new (2013) Petzl Croll

[Speleotron]

I would be as well, who would ever load a jammer to 4 kn?

 

[pwhole]

Interesting that the removal of the cam stop results in weight-loss - I would have thought the original cam-stop design wouldn't have a significant 'weight' issue as such, as it's just part of the frame bent through to the inside? Whether leaving the frame 'solid' or pushing a bit through, it's still the same amount of metal? I'm guessing it's more that the smaller frame just doesn't leave enough room to create the cam-stop safely.

 

[ianball11]

I like seeing Petzl defending their kit.

 

[droid]

They'd be rather unwise NOT to defend their kit.

Interesting though that their first comment was that the information would damage the company....rather than damage the product user.... :

 

[ianball11]

Like speleotron said, 4kN on a jammer is a high number.

They could have just stated it meets the necessary legislation and left it at that.  The defensive position with self arranged and independent testing to confront the claims is much more calming to me.

 

[pwhole]

Not having a new model to hand yet, how is the cam prevented from breaking through? Does anyone have one handy? Just interested how they do it, rather than worried it won't work!

 

[Pete K]

The cam is prevented from pulling out by the body of the Croll itself. The failures in the OP resulting in the cam pulling out appeared to be due to the body cracking and deforming, allowing more room for the cam to rise.
No cam-stop required, if you have damaged the body in a 4kN+ impact then the stop would probably do nothing anyway. Best to simply use them correctly and not try lobbing off on them.