Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 07:47pm PT
|
Melissa, I would like to think I that last year I was simply attempting to be an objective voice as someone with some understanding of manufacturing and QC systems. At the time I felt the situation was such that it could be reasonable addressed with the appropriate combination of effective communication and formal QC protocols. Both of those have proven to be either simply beyond CCH's scope of interest or beyond their capabilities.
The bottom line now is that they haven't been able to consistently implement whatever QC protocols they did put in place and their communcation is as abysmal and ineffective as ever. The latter is regrettable, the former is inexcusable. I believe they had an opportunity to get their house in order, address these problems, and put this whole affair behind them and failed to take advantage of it. I suspect what will happen is they will simply continue as ever given it appears to be all they know how to do. Someone could sue them to force them out of business as I suspect they have neither cash for a defense, assets of any value, and no insurance to go after.
Any retailer who continues to sell them at this point is doing themselves and their customers no good service. I would not do business with any such company. CCH can of course always continue to sell them direct on-line, but then at least you'd have to seek them out and only you and CCH would bear the responsibility at that point.
|
|
fassett
Trad climber
tucson
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 08:14pm PT
|
A friend and I just finished some impromptu testing of CCH Aliens in actual rock placements. The cams ranged in size and age (both pre and post recall). We yanked on them using a car - and while we don't have a dynamometer (yet) I can tell you that the force was much greater than what you'd get in a typical climbing fall: the car was often yanked backward, the knots in the climbing rope were completely impossible to untie, and the 31-kN carabiner we were using was deformed.
Bottom line: the cams were bomber. There were no cable or brazing failures. In all cases where we pulled to failure, the ROCK failed before the cams did. (These were solid placements in good quality granite.) The cables were all twisted up, the lobes badly deformed (and inverted as the rock blew apart), and the loops pulled into wild shapes - but NO brazing failures, NO cable failure. Just lots of rock dust.
We'll post photos and links to videos as we have time, but you can look at some of the initial photos at at www.geir.com/aliens/
STOP THE WITCH HUNT!
JF
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 08:29pm PT
|
It isn't a witch hunt and I'd expect your results when testing 999 out of a 1000 cams - but that isn't the point. The point is they are shipping that 1 out of a 1000 cam because their QC is incapable of identifying it. How about we do some more testing with a random selection of 100 10/05 cams and you take a 40 foot dive on them where if it fails you deck?
|
|
BoKu
Trad climber
Douglas Flat, CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 09:00pm PT
|
Earlier, "fassett" wrote:
> A friend and I just finished some impromptu
> testing of CCH Aliens in actual rock placements...
>
> ...we don't have a dynamometer (yet)...
>
> ...Bottom line: the cams were bomber....
>
> ...you can look at some of the initial
> photos at at www.geir.com/aliens/
>
> STOP THE WITCH HUNT!
So:
* You tested a few representative samples
* All of them held unknown loadings that are thought to be above their ratings
* So all untested Aliens must be fine
* And therefore the current concern about Aliens that have demonstrated failure below their rating is baseless Internet-driven hysteria.
Do I understand that correctly?
Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K.
|
|
rockgeir
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 09:27pm PT
|
No, Bob, we just thought it would be nice to do testing of our own and report some positive stuff for a change.
|
|
steelmnkey
climber
Vision man...ya gotta have vision...
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 09:30pm PT
|
Fasset - I'll tell the guy here in Phx with the plate in his head that that Alien that blew apart on him when he hung on it was all a big dream...
Nobody's saying they're ALL bunk, but if you can't tell the bunk from the good stuff, then it ain't worth risking your neck on. I think if you've gotten them reliably pull tested, they're fine to use, but trusting them without a checkout is just plain nutz at this point.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 11:04pm PT
|
Pull testing doesn't mean sh#t anymore. Since there seems to be such a large variety of failures with a wide range of failure tension......
Just 'cause you pull test to 1000 just means it pull tested to 1000 that one time. Might fail the next time. Might not. Might fail at 1050 pounds.
Face it, they're unreliable, unpredictable, garbage. It just doesn't make sense when there are other options out there.
And this from someone who used to love them....
Damn shame....
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 11:16pm PT
|
Hey euro-brief-guy,
Chez shouldn't be hanging on any piece at this point.
Thanks for the data Russ. This information may come in handy when you and I run up Astroman!
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 11:36pm PT
|
Please send me all your unwanted aliens. Thanks in advance.
E-mail me for my address.
Bob
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 - 11:53pm PT
|
Clearly, any Aliens that test good probably are. I wouldn't hesitate to use any of my two sets of hybrids. But again, that's not the issue - the issue is their inability to execute with consistent quality on any scale. I won't be surprised if CCH stays in business selling direct to a small cadre of loyalists and their followers who are personally capable of managing the uncertainty clearly associated with CCH's product. In fact, I'd say CCH only got in trouble because they took on a big-box retail contract with REI and got way, way over-extended. Had they kept to their roots and not put themselves under the enormous pressure of that demand they wouldn't be in this very sad situation today.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 12:03am PT
|
"Fasset - I'll tell the guy here in Phx with the plate in his head that that Alien that blew apart on him when he hung on it was all a big dream... "
If you're going to dog on Aliens or any other piece of trad gear you're gambling hard to begin with. Treating trad gear like bolts is not a great idea. Double bummer in this case, that the Alien blew, but there have been several deckings recently with calamatous results where the gear was functional, but the placements went bad after hanging on them a couple of times. This is getting to be a common problem with folks crossing over from sport to trad, but still using sport tactics.
|
|
MikeL
climber
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 11:24am PT
|
Healyje said, "any Aliens that test good probably are."
Maybe not. After reading many of these posts, I noticed that no one claimed to be an expert on the subject, so I got some professional courtesy at the university where I teach here in Silicon Valley. I found a professor in mechanical engineering who specializes in material failures, and I took my aliens to the prof. That professor said we could test them in the lab next week, but was pretty adamant about me not climbing on the gear after we tested it. The prof said that if the brazing was poor or improperly done, then testing the gear could weaken the brazing even if it passed a test at the limit. On the other hand, this person said, if the brazing were done correctly, then testing wouldn't make any difference. I don't know what kind of machine we'll use next week, but the prof said that we might be able to see from the graphical display on the machine whether there were minor failures in the brazing.
So, as I understand the prof, even if an alien passes an impromptu test such as many people are performing, it may not mean anything and could even weaken an already poorly brazed cam.
To me, this further underscores the importance of a statistically (e.g., six sigma) managed process rather than just testing each cam. This information from the prof may also explain why BD does not test each cam at the limit.
I'm not sure what to do personally. I'm currently thinking that if any cam fails, then I'll take a sledge hammer to them all. (No I won't send any of them to you--I don't like the karmic implications.) I'll report the results of the tests.
Regards,
MikeL
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 12:05pm PT
|
Wow...thanks for the extra info MikeL. I've been on the fence about how I want to test mine since if I do something greivous to my units, I'm not sure I won't be less comfortable instead of more. Let us know what you find out!
When Kate took her big fall a couple of years ago, she lightly bounced on the rivet hanger that broke when she got on it. A concern, though unverified, was that the wire slipped through the swage in the testing and cut loose when she actually got on it. That's the sort of thing that I'm scared of here...it pulls a litte, a little more...and when you go to actually use it, it's on the edge and ready to pop out.
I went to Golden Gate Wall and bounced my aliens for all I was worth yesterday and discovered that I'm not capable of bouncing very hard. I had a hell of a time breaking my accessory cord 'draws', and when they did blow, I'm pretty sure it was just cumultive sawing at the knot. No cam heads came flying off under body weight at least!
I did get lots of interesting looks from commuters, joggers, and cyclists since I'm sure I looked like I was having a psychotic fit on a city street.
Your prof. friend confirming what my gut felt...that testing could be worse than nothing...is sort of a last straw for me. Plus my bf has had it too and put in the vote for a set of small QCed cams. Even if my aliens are still where it's at on an aid climb w/ lots of pin scars, I'll be psyched to be able to place a more reliable cam for pro when the rock allows.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 12:16pm PT
|
"further underscores the importance of a statistically (e.g., six sigma) managed process rather than just testing each cam"
Keep in mind unless your professor has worked in a factory with his butt on the line for quality, I would submit that his non-professional opinion on the matter is purely academic. Repeating CCH's test will only tell you what everyone already knows. Measuring strain, as it sound like your professor also wants to do, will be a rat hole. Good luck determining which part in the assy is stretching - probably the plastic on the thumb loop.
To clarify, the "correct" six sigma (SPC, 3 sigma, ISO, whatever..) impelemtation would be to test the brazes to breaking on some statistically significant number of joints. Variation would be tracked, studied and minimized. I haven't really read anything about this happening. I have read that he loads the brazed joints to some load, and has broken a few finished assemblies - but neither of these things really say much. By breaking the braze joints (actually, he should redesign the joint to get rid of the braze, but that's a different discussion), only then would he get on the path to having some level of assurance that ALL braze joints are in fact "good" to some acceptable level of confidence. Also - in fact one may find that the failure mode during such tests is that the steel cable is what usually breaks. This is okay, too, just slightly different statistical calculations. But, I would personally want to fixture that thing so the joint was taking the max stress I could give it. The "6" in six sigma is really a statement about variation - the real cause of all these problems. However, braze = variation, which is why they are rarely used in safety critical applications. Take a look around for plenty of examples.
JLP
|
|
steelmnkey
climber
Vision man...ya gotta have vision...
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 01:07pm PT
|
If you're going to dog on Aliens or any other piece of trad gear you're gambling hard to begin with. Treating trad gear like bolts is not a great idea. Double bummer in this case, that the Alien blew, but there have been several deckings recently with calamatous results where the gear was functional, but the placements went bad after hanging on them a couple of times. This is getting to be a common problem with folks crossing over from sport to trad, but still using sport tactics.
I'm not sure what your driving at here... in the case of the guy with the plate in his head, the Alien completely failed, it didn't come out of the crack. He's not a sport climber, and his placement was not the problem.
Given that hanging on them produces far less dynamic and general load on the piece than it is "supposed" to handle, then if you've placed it correctly and the rock is not suspect you shouldn't have anything to worry about. That's probably what most of us believe, right? I think given a piece that's supposed to be able to handle a load of 2000+ lbs should be able to handle me hanging on it as long as the rock around it holds. I'm not a big hang dogger, but that's sort of academic to to the argument. If you're pretty much rolling the dice every time you even hang on a cam (given a reasonable knowledge of placing gear in good rock - and assuming it's NOT and Alien), then we all better just hang it up now and get some golf clubs.
I'm also pretty sure that if the piece does blow, then climbers are going to be far more willing to accept personal responsibility for the incident when they don't have to look back up at the crack and see half their cam still up there and the other half on the deck with them. This was the case with the guy here in Phx, by the way. The Alien blew at the braze.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 01:22pm PT
|
"If you're pretty much rolling the dice every time you even hang on a cam (given a reasonable knowledge of placing gear in good rock), then we all better just hang it up now and get some golf clubs."
My point wasn't about experienced trad climbers who, for whatever reason, occasionally end up on a piece whether by falling or resting. The comment is about a growing trend of the last several years related to people newly crossing over from sport to trad who still attempt to "work" routes as if they were bolted by repeatedly resting on points of protection. Carrying over this tactic from sport climbing is inherently risky if you don't recheck and possibly reset a piece after each and every time you weight it and then climb off of it. Many of these crossover climbers are instead repeatedly dogging on gear without so much as glancing at it between goes. Each year this ill-advised practice grows and so do the number accidents which can be directly attributed to it.
Now the fellow you cite in PHX may or may not have been 'dogging' on the Alien in this manner, but my point was that doing so with any placement is a risky proposition unless you check it each and every time you unweight and climb past it again - or if you're simply really, really unlucky and the [single] piece you decide to rest on is a bogus piece of shite.
[Edit:] With regards to individual vs. statistical quality control methods - given the current situation and the fact folks own individual cams, testing them is a no brainer regardless of the comments this engineering academic. The assertion that reasonable testing is going to weaken them is both unreasonable and weak itself as far as I'm concerned. Test them or toss them - but climbing on untested Aliens at this point is flat out stupid. Six Sigma, WCM, or other recognized statistical QC methods should definitely be employed in the manufacture of any such gear, but it has already been clearly established that isn't going to happen in this particular small craft shop.
|
|
steelmnkey
climber
Vision man...ya gotta have vision...
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 01:26pm PT
|
Gotcha. I hear ya...you can't just bounce on the thing and then not make sure you're okay for the next round.
Guy in question climbed up, got a little pumped, put in the Alien, hung on it, blow, crater. He wasn't repeatedly hammering on it.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 01:34pm PT
|
fasset"A friend and I just finished some impromptu testing of CCH Aliens in actual rock placements. The cams ranged in size and age (both pre and post recall). We yanked on them using a car - and while we don't have a dynamometer (yet) I can tell you that the force was much greater than what you'd get in a typical climbing fall: the car was often yanked backward, the knots in the climbing rope were completely impossible to untie, and the 31-kN carabiner we were using was deformed.
Bottom line: the cams were bomber. There were no cable or brazing failures. In all cases where we pulled to failure, the ROCK failed before the cams did. (These were solid placements in good quality granite.) The cables were all twisted up, the lobes badly deformed (and inverted as the rock blew apart), and the loops pulled into wild shapes - but NO brazing failures, NO cable failure. Just lots of rock dust.
We'll post photos and links to videos as we have time, but you can look at some of the initial photos at at www.geir.com/aliens/
STOP THE WITCH HUNT!
JF "
This is not a witch hunt. Its about confidence in the gear on your rack. If the leader does not have confidence in that gear then WTF good is it. Climbing is hard enough without throwing some homemade cams on your rack and expecting to live through it.
I am still waiting for the bodies to start stacking up like cordwood though....
It may well be just a few select aliens that are failing, but most of us dont want to find out the hard way if that cam is on our rack....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 01:53pm PT
|
"Climbing is hard enough without throwing some homemade cams on your rack and expecting to live through it."
Unless of course, you are master Blinny.
|
|
wildone
climber
Isolated in El Portal and loving it
|
|
|
May 18, 2007 - 02:04pm PT
|
I like these little buggers-
I mean, hot damn!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!