LaGard 3332 2M Frustration
Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:39 pm
You may have seen in my other posts that I have been steadily working toward 2M locks. Recently, my confidence on LaGard was running high after several successful opens on their 3330 Group 2. I finally got the courage to mount the Lagard 2M and start working on it.
I've made some very tiny amounts of progress working on the S&G 6630 2M, but I'm still very much in the research/technique development phase with that lock. But at least with the S&G, I think I see A WAY of doing it....
But the LaGard 2M has me absolutely stumped. It reveals nothing! And it is becoming apparent to me that the conventional techniques of manipulation are basically out the window (whereas they just seem to require some modification on the 6630).
The 3332 defeats you through an absence of information versus "too much" or "bad" information on the 6630. Here are some pics that help explain what is going on.
First, a comparison of the 2M 3332 (left) and the regular Group 2 3330 (right).
It appears that the only component changes are:
1. Different lever (no stop for the wire tension spring found on the Group 2's lever but a "lug" at the top of the 2M's lever for the 2M linkage spring)
2. A part on the 2M that I am calling the "tomahawk" (why? because I don't know what it's called but it looks like a fucking tomahawk) that has a pivot on the lock body, is moved by a roller on the back of the cam, and is joined with the lever via a tension spring.
2. Consequently, the 2M has no wire spring to provide constant tension on the lever as found on the Group 2
3. Different cam on the 2M. As mentioned, it has a roller bearing for pushing the linkage around at the appropriate times. ALSO, the cam is relieved on either side of the cam's opening to prevent the nose from dragging and creating conventional contact points (the 2M's linkage is such that the roller & tomahawk are timed to pull the nose downward toward the cam only as the nose passes the opening in the cam. Because of the reliefs I mentioned on either side of the cam opening, the fence actually stops against the wheel pack before the cam can make contact with anything. It's fucking hard to explain. How about some more pics.
Here's another view of the 2M. See the tomahawk? It fucks your world up.
In this pic, you can see that the fence is not in contact with the wheel pack. It remains in the state until the roller and tomahawk grab the lever and pull it in (for about 13 graduations).
So here you will see the first moment that the fence makes contact with the wheel pack. In this case I am rotating the dial to the right. The tomahawk makes contact with the roller and puts tension on the spring. The spring lifts the nose toward the cam, BUT the cam does not actually ever make contact with the nose. In fact, the cam never actually makes contact with the nose UNLESS the combo is dialed. Why? Well the shape of the tomahawk and the roller's timing do something impressive---when the roller is NOT in contact with the tomahawk, the spring sort of applies a lateral tension that is just enough to keep the nose from ever touching the cam during rotation. When we reach the point shown below, the tomahawk snaps the fence against the wheel pack, but again, the cam isn't touching the nose even now because those relief cuts on either side of the cam opening put air where there used to be cam meat so we could take CP reading.
When developing a technique for this lock, I looked for moments when the fence is actually touching the wheel pack and tried to find ways to take measurements from the dial. So, I considered using the position below as a psuedo CP point. However, it is pure mush. The combination of the roller and the spring and all that nonsense make this contact point NOT a contact point at all. Yes, it lifts the fence against the wheel pack, but you can't actually measure how deep it's going into the wheel pack from the feedback at the dial.
Ok, so what else we got? This is the next possible candidate. "Balancing" the roller on the tip at the bottom edge of the tomahawk is a discernible moment in time. Yes, you can pretty much pin it down to one moment on the dial. But again, is that really telling you how deep the fence is moving into the wheel back? Nope. Not for me at least. Spring and linkage and nonsense remove all certainty of what the fence is actually doing on the wheel pack. I tried moving slowly. Moving quickly. Adding magnifying glass. Burning incense and chanting with my eyes rolled back into my head. Nothing.
Lastly, we have this stop point. In this case, I am turning the dial to the left. At this moment, for whatever reason, there is a nice hard stop that you can feel and consistently hit to a 10th of a graduation or thereabouts. But, we have the same problem we've been having. Even if we can pinpoint this moment when the fence is hitting the wheel pack, we can't really tell how deep it is going. During my testing, I experimentally replaced the spring with a piece of wire, effectively eliminating ALL the play and mush that the spring caused. Even with this modification, I could not see any difference in readings taken at the dial with one or even two gates under the fence. I am not an engineer, but I think that the leverage that the tomahawk creates some how reduces the differences shown at the dial. (Same principle as any lever. Push the "long" side of the lever through it's arc and you get more movement on that side with less force, but more force and significantly less movement on the other side. Kinda theoretical, but this may be one reason why even replacing the spring with wire showed no change in CP reading.)
So where does that leave us? I know this lock can be manipulated because I have seen it specifically listed on course documentation. There is a lot of knowledge and experience on this forum so I have high hopes that someone can help!
Edit: Fixed a crappy pic
I've made some very tiny amounts of progress working on the S&G 6630 2M, but I'm still very much in the research/technique development phase with that lock. But at least with the S&G, I think I see A WAY of doing it....
But the LaGard 2M has me absolutely stumped. It reveals nothing! And it is becoming apparent to me that the conventional techniques of manipulation are basically out the window (whereas they just seem to require some modification on the 6630).
The 3332 defeats you through an absence of information versus "too much" or "bad" information on the 6630. Here are some pics that help explain what is going on.
First, a comparison of the 2M 3332 (left) and the regular Group 2 3330 (right).
It appears that the only component changes are:
1. Different lever (no stop for the wire tension spring found on the Group 2's lever but a "lug" at the top of the 2M's lever for the 2M linkage spring)
2. A part on the 2M that I am calling the "tomahawk" (why? because I don't know what it's called but it looks like a fucking tomahawk) that has a pivot on the lock body, is moved by a roller on the back of the cam, and is joined with the lever via a tension spring.
2. Consequently, the 2M has no wire spring to provide constant tension on the lever as found on the Group 2
3. Different cam on the 2M. As mentioned, it has a roller bearing for pushing the linkage around at the appropriate times. ALSO, the cam is relieved on either side of the cam's opening to prevent the nose from dragging and creating conventional contact points (the 2M's linkage is such that the roller & tomahawk are timed to pull the nose downward toward the cam only as the nose passes the opening in the cam. Because of the reliefs I mentioned on either side of the cam opening, the fence actually stops against the wheel pack before the cam can make contact with anything. It's fucking hard to explain. How about some more pics.
Here's another view of the 2M. See the tomahawk? It fucks your world up.
In this pic, you can see that the fence is not in contact with the wheel pack. It remains in the state until the roller and tomahawk grab the lever and pull it in (for about 13 graduations).
So here you will see the first moment that the fence makes contact with the wheel pack. In this case I am rotating the dial to the right. The tomahawk makes contact with the roller and puts tension on the spring. The spring lifts the nose toward the cam, BUT the cam does not actually ever make contact with the nose. In fact, the cam never actually makes contact with the nose UNLESS the combo is dialed. Why? Well the shape of the tomahawk and the roller's timing do something impressive---when the roller is NOT in contact with the tomahawk, the spring sort of applies a lateral tension that is just enough to keep the nose from ever touching the cam during rotation. When we reach the point shown below, the tomahawk snaps the fence against the wheel pack, but again, the cam isn't touching the nose even now because those relief cuts on either side of the cam opening put air where there used to be cam meat so we could take CP reading.
When developing a technique for this lock, I looked for moments when the fence is actually touching the wheel pack and tried to find ways to take measurements from the dial. So, I considered using the position below as a psuedo CP point. However, it is pure mush. The combination of the roller and the spring and all that nonsense make this contact point NOT a contact point at all. Yes, it lifts the fence against the wheel pack, but you can't actually measure how deep it's going into the wheel pack from the feedback at the dial.
Ok, so what else we got? This is the next possible candidate. "Balancing" the roller on the tip at the bottom edge of the tomahawk is a discernible moment in time. Yes, you can pretty much pin it down to one moment on the dial. But again, is that really telling you how deep the fence is moving into the wheel back? Nope. Not for me at least. Spring and linkage and nonsense remove all certainty of what the fence is actually doing on the wheel pack. I tried moving slowly. Moving quickly. Adding magnifying glass. Burning incense and chanting with my eyes rolled back into my head. Nothing.
Lastly, we have this stop point. In this case, I am turning the dial to the left. At this moment, for whatever reason, there is a nice hard stop that you can feel and consistently hit to a 10th of a graduation or thereabouts. But, we have the same problem we've been having. Even if we can pinpoint this moment when the fence is hitting the wheel pack, we can't really tell how deep it is going. During my testing, I experimentally replaced the spring with a piece of wire, effectively eliminating ALL the play and mush that the spring caused. Even with this modification, I could not see any difference in readings taken at the dial with one or even two gates under the fence. I am not an engineer, but I think that the leverage that the tomahawk creates some how reduces the differences shown at the dial. (Same principle as any lever. Push the "long" side of the lever through it's arc and you get more movement on that side with less force, but more force and significantly less movement on the other side. Kinda theoretical, but this may be one reason why even replacing the spring with wire showed no change in CP reading.)
So where does that leave us? I know this lock can be manipulated because I have seen it specifically listed on course documentation. There is a lot of knowledge and experience on this forum so I have high hopes that someone can help!
Edit: Fixed a crappy pic