Next Return Previous

C.A.M.P.
(Concezione Articoli Montagna Premana)

Pilot, Version A Pilot, Version B Pilot, Version C
Pilot, Version A Pilot, Version B Pilot, Version C
 
Turbohand TurbohandPro
Turbohand Turbohand Pro

Overview


Pilot, Version A
(#151, 2206)

Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
 
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging

Technical Details

I acquired this pair of ascenders from K&R Adventure Gear in March 2001. I acquired another pair in 2017 as part of Bob Thrun’s collection.

Cam faceThe shell is a tall irregular shaped stamping made from 3.5 mm. aluminum alloy sheet metal. The stamping has a number of reinforcing ribs. A rope channel is formed in the upper portion of one side and a smaller cam channel lies opposite the first. A hole drilled through both sides of the cam channel accepts a 4 mm. pin which enters from the rear and is expanded in front. The cam, cam spring and a spacing washer are mounted on this pin. The handle below the cam has a "rubber" plastic hand grip molded into place. The hand grip has shallow index and ring finger grooves. A 15.8 mm. sling attachment hole is punched below the handle opening. A 14.6 by 18.3 mm. oval hole through both sides of the rope channel provides an attachment point just above the cam. An arc-shaped slot is punched below and concentric with the cam pivot. This slot is enlarged at both ends and narrow in the center. The cam safety rides in this slot.

The cam is a steel casting. The cam has seventeen small conical teeth, all of which have their axes approximately parallel to each other. The central teeth have their axes in line with the cam pivot. The tooth pattern is (2)(1D1)^7(1) where D is a shallow depression that does not penetrate the cam face. Unlike some other ascenders, the inner cam face radius appears to be constant. A spring-loaded manual safety passes through the cam and the arc-shaped slot in the shell. The head of the safety forms a 15 mm. diameter round-headed button. The safety shaft is 6 mm. in diameter, then increases to 8.5 mm. where it passes through the shell, and finally to 11 mm. Normally a spring pushes the safety toward the front of the ascender, and the enlarged 8.5 mm. portion fits into one of the large areas of the slot. Depending on which end of the slot it is in, this either keeps the cam from opening enough to release the main rope or keeps the cam from closing. Pushing the head of the safety aligns the 6 mm. shaft with the shell, allowing the cam to move through it’s full range of motion.

The right ascender is anodized blue and the left one gray. The front has the C.A.M.P. logo, the "Sieg Heil" icon, "EN 567," "CE0123," "ROPE," "min ø 8" and "max ø 13" printed onto the rope channel. The left ascender has "Italy" and "1E" printed on the cam channel, the right one has "Italy" and "4D" in the corresponding place. "CAMP" is molded into the front and back of each handgrip.

Comments

The Pilot is the handled version of the C.A.M.P. Solo.

The Camp Pilot is one of the following handled ascenders sharing the same cam safety design (which is also found on the Camp Solo):

Image Ascender Frame
Thickness
Tooth Pattern Cam Face
Blanzo Blanzo 3.4 mm (1.2)(3.2)^4(1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version A Camp Pilot, Version A 3.5 mm (2)(1S1)^7(1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version B Camp Pilot, Version B 3.4 mm (1)(2.3)^4(2.1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version C Camp Pilot, Version C 3.4 mm (1)(2.3)^4(2.1) Cam face
Magideal Magideal 3.8 mm. (4.3)(1H1)(2.3.2.H)^2(3.2)^2 Cam face
SUT SUT 4.0 mm (4.3)(1H1)(2.3.2.H)^2(3.2)^2 Cam face

These are well made ascenders. All sharp edges have been removed. Admittedly, we don't have as much experience with Chinese metallurgy and quality control as we have with American and European devices, but I find nothing visibly wrong with these ascenders.

All of these have comfortable handles. The location of the index finger supports on the Magideal and SUT are fine for my large hands.

I like the location of the reinforcing better on these than the location used on, say, the Kong-Bonaiti or Petzl Ascension. Accidental bending at the pit lip is still a concern, but the reinforcing helps.

The lower attachment hole could theoretically have the same safety problems as the one on Clog Version A. The attachment points are simply holes in the shell, but on the Blanzo and the Camp Solo, the "rubber" handgrip encircles the holes. This provides some rounding but since the metal edges do not appear to be beveled, I would prefer not to tie directly into them. Considering the proximity of the attachment points to the main rope, I would recommend using a small maillon for most attachments in order to reduce the risk of sling abrasion.

The Magideal and SUT also have outer lower attachment holes, but these are too small for a normal carabiner. I'm not sure the extra holes are needed at the base. Except for the Petzl Pompe, I've never found a real need for a second hole. Some people like them, and I might find them more appealing if they were large enough for a standard carabiner to fit through.

The upper attachment holes are located very close to the main rope. A carabiner through the upper attachment hole will probably drag on the main line. Note that such a carabiner will prevent putting the ascender on or off rope, so one's climbing system must be designed accordingly.

These ascenders use several different cams, but in each case the cam is very well made and the cam teeth are very well done. The Magideal and SUT cams are essentially identical. The Blanzo and Camp Pilot, Versions B & C have the same tooth pattern, but the rows on the Blanzo are in four groups (4, 2, 2, and 3 rows per group) while aside from an isolated top tooth, all of the rows on the Version B & C Pilots are evenly spaced.

When I first encountered the design on the Camp Pilot, I found the safety took a few minutes to get used to. After minimal practice I decided that this is one of the easier safety designs to operate for stamped-frame handled eccentric cam ascenders. Single-handed operation of thse ascenders is fairly easy with the either hand. Closing an locked open ascender is accomplished with a simple push on the button.

Overall, I like these ascenders better than most stamped-frame handled ascenders. The price of the Chinese ascenders was much lower than that of American or European ascenders.

Instructions Instructions

Pilot, Version B
(#2206)

Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
 
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging

Technical Details

I acquired my C.A.M.P. Pilot, Version B in 2017 as part of Bob Thrun’s collection.

Version B is 200 mm. tall, 99 mm. wide, 32 mm. thick, and weighs 209 g.

Cam faceThe shell on Version B is essentially the same as the one on Version A (except for stampings), but the cam is new.

The cam is a skeletonized steel casting. The cam has twenty-four small conical teeth, all of which have their axes approximately parallel to the cam top. The central teeth have their axes in line with the cam pivot. The tooth pattern is (1)(2.3)^4(2.1). Unlike some other ascenders, the inner cam face radius appears to be constant. A spring-loaded manual safety passes through the cam and the arc-shaped slot in the shell. The head of the safety forms a 15 mm. diameter round-headed button. The safety shaft is 11.8 mm. in diameter, then narrows to 4 mm. inside the cam, then increases to 7.5 mm. where it passes through the shell, and finally to 11 mm. Normally a spring pushes the safety toward the front of the ascender, and the enlarged 7.5 mm. portion fits into one of the large areas of the slot. Depending on which end of the slot it is in, this either keeps the cam from opening enough to release the main rope or keeps the cam from closing. Pushing the head of the safety aligns the 4 mm. shaft with the shell, allowing the cam to move through it’s full range of motion.

The front inside of the shell has"CE" and "0123" stamped above the cam, a reading-is-dangerous icon stamped below, and "EN 567," below the cam channel. The front of the rope channel is stamped with "ROPE MIN Ø8 MAX Ø13," "CAMP", and the "Sieg Heil" icon. The rear is stamped with "ITALY and "1-L" on the left-hand ascender and "2-05" on the right.

Comments

The Camp Pilot is one of the following handled ascenders sharing the same cam safety design (which is also found on the Camp Solo):

Image Ascender Frame
Thickness
Tooth Pattern Cam Face
Blanzo Blanzo 3.4 mm (1.2)(3.2)^4(1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version A Camp Pilot, Version A 3.5 mm (2)(1S1)^7(1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version B Camp Pilot, Version B 3.4 mm (1)(2.3)^4(2.1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version C Camp Pilot, Version C 3.4 mm (1)(2.3)^4(2.1) Cam face
Magideal Magideal 3.8 mm. (4.3)(1H1)(2.3.2.H)^2(3.2)^2 Cam face
SUT SUT 4.0 mm (4.3)(1H1)(2.3.2.H)^2(3.2)^2 Cam face

These are well made ascenders. All sharp edges have been removed. Admittedly, we don't have as much experience with Chinese metallurgy and quality control as we have with American and European devices, but I find nothing visibly wrong with these ascenders.

All of these have comfortable handles. The location of the index finger supports on the Magideal and SUT are fine for my large hands.

I like the location of the reinforcing better on these than the location used on, say, the Kong-Bonaiti or Petzl Ascension. Accidental bending at the pit lip is still a concern, but the reinforcing helps.

The lower attachment hole could theoretically have the same safety problems as the one on Clog Version A. The attachment points are simply holes in the shell, but on the Blanzo and the Camp Solo, the "rubber" handgrip encircles the holes. This provides some rounding but since the metal edges do not appear to be beveled, I would prefer not to tie directly into them. Considering the proximity of the attachment points to the main rope, I would recommend using a small maillon for most attachments in order to reduce the risk of sling abrasion.

The Magideal and SUT also have outer lower attachment holes, but these are too small for a normal carabiner. I'm not sure the extra holes are needed at the base. Except for the Petzl Pompe, I've never found a real need for a second hole. Some people like them, and I might find them more appealing if they were large enough for a standard carabiner to fit through.

The upper attachment holes are located very close to the main rope. A carabiner through the upper attachment hole will probably drag on the main line. Note that such a carabiner will prevent putting the ascender on or off rope, so one's climbing system must be designed accordingly.

These ascenders use several different cams, but in each case the cam is very well made and the cam teeth are very well done. The Magideal and SUT cams are essentially identical. The Blanzo and Camp Pilot, Versions B & C have the same tooth pattern, but the rows on the Blanzo are in four groups (4, 2, 2, and 3 rows per group) while aside from an isolated top tooth, all of the rows on the Version B & C Pilots are evenly spaced.

When I first encountered the design on the Camp Pilot, I found the safety took a few minutes to get used to. After minimal practice I decided that this is one of the easier safety designs to operate for stamped-frame handled eccentric cam ascenders. Single-handed operation of thse ascenders is fairly easy with the either hand. Closing an locked open ascender is accomplished with a simple push on the button.

Overall, I like these ascenders better than most stamped-frame handled ascenders. The price of the Chinese ascenders was much lower than that of American or European ascenders.


Pilot, Version B
(#3452)

Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
 
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging

Cam faceTechnical Details

I acquired my C.A.M.P. Pilot, Version C from Curt T. Fladager in 2021.

Version C is 200 mm. tall, 100 mm. wide, 32 mm. thick, and weighs 216 g.

Version C is essentially the same as Version N, except for stampings.

The front inside of the shell has"CE" and "0123" stamped above the cam and a reading-is-dangerous icon stamped below. The front of the rope channel is printed with the C.A.M.P. Safety logo, "Made in ITALY," "PILOT,’ "Ref.547.01," "EN 567:1997," 8≤ø≤13, the "Sieg Heil" icon, "3 11, and 0414." "CAMP" is molded into the front and back of each handgrip.

Comments

The Camp Pilot is one of the following handled ascenders sharing the same cam safety design (which is also found on the Camp Solo):

Image Ascender Frame
Thickness
Tooth Pattern Cam Face
Blanzo Blanzo 3.4 mm (1.2)(3.2)^4(1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version A Camp Pilot, Version A 3.5 mm (2)(1S1)^7(1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version B Camp Pilot, Version B 3.4 mm (1)(2.3)^4(2.1) Cam face
Camp Pilot, Version C Camp Pilot, Version C 3.4 mm (1)(2.3)^4(2.1) Cam face
Magideal Magideal 3.8 mm. (4.3)(1H1)(2.3.2.H)^2(3.2)^2 Cam face
SUT SUT 4.0 mm (4.3)(1H1)(2.3.2.H)^2(3.2)^2 Cam face

These are well made ascenders. All sharp edges have been removed. Admittedly, we don't have as much experience with Chinese metallurgy and quality control as we have with American and European devices, but I find nothing visibly wrong with these ascenders.

All of these have comfortable handles. The location of the index finger supports on the Magideal and SUT are fine for my large hands.

I like the location of the reinforcing better on these than the location used on, say, the Kong-Bonaiti or Petzl Ascension. Accidental bending at the pit lip is still a concern, but the reinforcing helps.

The lower attachment hole could theoretically have the same safety problems as the one on Clog Version A. The attachment points are simply holes in the shell, but on the Blanzo and the Camp Solo, the "rubber" handgrip encircles the holes. This provides some rounding but since the metal edges do not appear to be beveled, I would prefer not to tie directly into them. Considering the proximity of the attachment points to the main rope, I would recommend using a small maillon for most attachments in order to reduce the risk of sling abrasion.

The Magideal and SUT also have outer lower attachment holes, but these are too small for a normal carabiner. I'm not sure the extra holes are needed at the base. Except for the Petzl Pompe, I've never found a real need for a second hole. Some people like them, and I might find them more appealing if they were large enough for a standard carabiner to fit through.

The upper attachment holes are located very close to the main rope. A carabiner through the upper attachment hole will probably drag on the main line. Note that such a carabiner will prevent putting the ascender on or off rope, so one's climbing system must be designed accordingly.

These ascenders use several different cams, but in each case the cam is very well made and the cam teeth are very well done. The Magideal and SUT cams are essentially identical. The Blanzo and Camp Pilot, Versions B & C have the same tooth pattern, but the rows on the Blanzo are in four groups (4, 2, 2, and 3 rows per group) while aside from an isolated top tooth, all of the rows on the Version B & C Pilots are evenly spaced.

When I first encountered the design on the Camp Pilot, I found the safety took a few minutes to get used to. After minimal practice I decided that this is one of the easier safety designs to operate for stamped-frame handled eccentric cam ascenders. Single-handed operation of thse ascenders is fairly easy with the either hand. Closing an locked open ascender is accomplished with a simple push on the button.

Overall, I like these ascenders better than most stamped-frame handled ascenders. The price of the Chinese ascenders was much lower than that of American or European ascenders.


Turbohand
(#2386/2943)

Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
 
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging

Technical Details

I acquired my C.A.M.P. Turbohands from Rock N Rescue in 2019.

The C.A.M.P. Turbohand is 185 mm. tall, 94 mm. wide, 22 mm. thick, and weighs 172 g.

The shell is a tall rounded stamping made from 3.4 mm. aluminum alloy sheet metal. A rope channel is formed in the upper portion of one side. The rope channel is 14 mm. wide. A small extension at the base of the rope channel supports a pin that acts as an axle for a small roller.

Cam faceA hole drilled through the shell supports a 6 mm. pin which enters from the front and is riveted over a bushing in the rear. The cam, cam spring and a spacing washer are mounted on this pin. A small pin riveted below the cam axle acts as a cam stop.

The shell has dogleg bends that offset the handle toward the front of the ascender. The handle below the cam has a "rubber" plastic hand grip molded into place. The hand grip extends up the side of the ascender. It has a shallow index finger support. A 15.7 mm. sling attachment hole is punched below the handle opening and a 13.2 mm. hole is punched beside it. There is also a 15 mm. attachment hole above the cam.

The cam is a skeletonized steel casting. The cam radius increases from 29 to 50 mm. over an angle of 38°, giving a 40° cam angle. The tooth pattern is (3.2)(1H1)(2.2.3.H.2.2.1)(1H1)(2.2.3). A spring-loaded manual safety mounts on the bottom inside of the cam.

The front has the C.A.M.P. Safety Logo, "TURBO HAND," and "L" ("R" on the right hand ascender) printed onto the rope channel. The rear is printed with "04 19," "AC 0154," the C.A.M.P. Safety Logo,"REF.2643L," a book-with-an-"i" icon, "CE," "0123," "EAC," "TP TC," "019/2011," "Camp SPA," "Via Roma 23," "Primana (LG)," "23834 - Italy," "Made in China, "EN567:2013¡¤8<ø<13," another book-with-an-"i" icon,"EN12841B:200610<ø<13," yet another book-with-an-"i" icon, and "Max. 120 kg."

Comments

The Turbohand is the handled ascender designed to accompany the the Solo 2 and Turbochest. I feel that this is a well made ascender. All sharp edges have been removed. The attachment points are simply holes in the shell, and I prefer not to tie directly into them. Considering the proximity of the attachment points to the main rope, I would recommend using a small maillon for most attachments in order to reduce the risk of sling abrasion. The lower attachment hole could theoretically have the same safety problems as the one on Clog.

The cam teeth are very well done. I found the safety took a few minutes to get used to, but after some practice I found that single-handed operation of this ascender is fairly easy with the either hand. Closing an locked open ascender is accomplished with a simple push on the cam.

This ascender has the same pit lip disadvantage as the Clog.

Unlike most ascenders, this one does not have the shell bent to form a channel to support the outer end of the cam axle. I have some concern about the bending moment placed on the axle, and wonder if, over time, the axle might loosen.


Turbohand Pro
(#2944)

Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
Front View: Closed Rear View: Closed
 
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging
Front View: Open for Rigging Rear View: Open for Rigging

Cam faceTechnical Details

I acquired my C.A.M.P. Turbohand Pro from Omni Pro Gear in 2019.

The C.A.M.P. Turbohand Pro is 185 mm. tall, 94 mm. wide, 22 mm. thick, and weighs 185 g.

The Turbohand Pro adds a forged stainless steel guide to the Turbohand. The guide is attached to the lower frame with two 2.5 mm. hex socket machine screws. This guide forms a U-shaped rope channel near the basal attachment eye.

The markings on the Turbohand Pro are the same as on the corresponding Turbohand ascender.

Comments

The guide adds 13 g to the weight of each ascender. While this is not much, I don't see any need for the guide, so I would rather do without it.