Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 06:53pm PT
|
As my 6 year old likes to say, "Somebody got burned".
|
|
Russ Walling
Gym climber
Poofter's Froth, Wyoming
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 07:09pm PT
|
"Their crampons rock!!"
Next issue please.....
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 07:10pm PT
|
I get the picket sign that says, "Great Pacific Liar Works".
|
|
James Wilcox
Boulder climber
The Coast
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 07:19pm PT
|
Picket lines are pathetic and sad. I'd rather go get ice cream.
|
|
aforslund
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 07:23pm PT
|
Take note of the Sabretooth. When you get rid of the one flyer in both the CroMo and Stainless the CroMo is better.
Their own testing shows that.
Hmmm.
|
|
aforslund
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 07:25pm PT
|
It is the Sabretooth that we all have been asking about. It is the crampon with the noted failures. Their own numbers illustrate what the internets have been saying for over a year.
"Our crampons rock!"
|
|
labrat
Trad climber
Nevada City, CA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 07:31pm PT
|
coz,
It took two minutes for you to read and understand the announcement from BD and come back with a response? You sir are fast!
Did you happen to read this part?
"We watched the discussion—dominated by a handful of posters with well-documented personal vendettas against us—devolve into a series of irrational personal attacks, lies paraded as insider knowledge, and misleading and bullying of fellow forum members who voiced support for BD or asked for facts to support the claims."
Sound familiar?
Erik "the BD Tool"
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 08:34pm PT
|
I'm sorry to say if one looks at the history of this subject matter one will see that it's been going on for quite some time before this thread appeared on this forum.
Individuals have been trying to get knowledge about these failures from the manufacture and have been stymied repeatedly both here and before this discussion on this forum.
You even had individuals in this thread in a round about way telling us to STFU and not discuss it here in an open forum.
That was actually the second post in this thread which is a mind blower to me.
When gear has a catastrophic failure like this we are supposed to just STFU and contact the manufacturer only?
That avenue was already a failure, thus this thread came about.
Coz challenged the manufacture to come out about it.
Look at the timing of the manufactures response and the date this thread started.
The timing mysteriously corresponds exactly in relation to this thread?
It took someone like coz to take a stand and force the issue.
So don't take it out on him please .........
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 08:41pm PT
|
If the cyclic tests weren't done in a cold chamber they are meaningless.
Nobody uses pons in a 72 degree lab.
|
|
Big Mike
Trad climber
BC
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 08:48pm PT
|
This is bs. I am not an ice climber and know nothing about the subject. I know this though, bd's response gives me very little confidence in any of their other products.
|
|
dirhk
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 08:50pm PT
|
Those results would have more relevance if done at lower temperatures.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 08:56pm PT
|
Werner, there's nothing in the first post to indicate whether the poster had contacted Black Diamond, or not. I was simply suggesting (in the second post) that it would be a good idea to do so. Nothing more. Please don't read anything else into it.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 09:21pm PT
|
If the cyclic tests weren't done in a cold chamber they are meaningless.
+10
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012 - 10:36pm PT
|
I appreciate their response. At least it shows there are a few real engineer types left at BD. I, for one at least, partially applaud their response.
Anyone know what the actual stainless alloy is that they use? I know some materials guys who would love to run a few tests of their own.
I think what we've run into is a classic case of "innovation" sometimes biting you in the ass. Anytime a radical change is introduced into any product you are taking a huge risk no matter how exhaustive your testing might be. There is no subsitute for long-term trials by the true guinea pigs.
That's us in case you're not keeping up.
Ask any pharmaceutical company about it.
The difference here is nobody has died yet. BD can still save their image by laying their cards on the table and working with us. They gave us a glimpse but much more is needed.
Now, what I hope is happening at BD is a tripling of testing efforts designed to break their stainless models in new creative ways. The temperature thing has already been brought up. What about the effect of the inevitable nicks and deep gouges acting as stress risers? These could be very different in stainless.
How do the new materials ultimately fail? I've NEVER seen chromoly crampon frames fail in the field. Points, bales, straps, sure.
Where does the stainless sheet come from? One source? Many? What kind of certification does the raw material have, if any.
It takes a lot to earn trust and if you hide anything that trust is lost forever.
|
|
ncrockclimber
climber
The Desert Oven
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 01:00am PT
|
Interesting response from BD. I read the entire thing twice. They give a lot of information about their crampons. They also provide some insight into the company culture; it seems that BD does not deal well with having their product quality questioned and will negatively characterize individuals that are not actively advocating their party line.
However, for me the most important section of the post is as follows:
"All inclusive, our historical return rate for crampons is less than 0.1%. Specifically, crampon warranty return rates were around 0.06% for the eight-year period prior to using stainless steel, and around 0.02% since switching to stainless in 2009— as you can see in the chart below. We have rarely ever seen vertical front point crampons returned (remember that 2x6 analogy), so if we divide the warranty return rate down by model, it creeps close to 0.2% for technical crampons with horizontal front points (not shown specifically in this graph)."
It is interesting that they do not state specifically if the SS Sabre has had more or less returns than the previous generation of non-SS horizontal front point crampons. Also, they do not disclose if the SS Sabre catastrophically fails more or less often than the previous generation of non-SS horizontal front point crampons. They provide overall product line numbers, but no current vs historical data about the specific model in question. In the end, that is the one piece of data that would resolve this entire issue, yet it is missing. Why?
I get the part about "crampons break." I get the part about softer boots contributing to the problem. I get the tradeoff between weight and durability. Although .2% is a small number (between 4 and 5 Sigma), I still think that it is a big deal. Especially if I am one of the .2%.
As Werner and RDB stated, this has been going on for a while. BD has had time to address this proactively for over a year. They did not. They said a lot of different things to a lot of people. Consistently, they deny that there is a problem. Even today, they are still putting out a lot of marketing spin, yet they do not answer the one question being asked; do the Sabres fail more often than the previous generation of non-SS horizontal front point crampons?
The things I look for in a gear manufacturer are quality, durability, customer service, transparency and a commitment to stand behind their product after the sale. After reading BDs post, I understand that they are focused on innovation, lightweight gear and brand image. I am not so sure about how actual product quality is valued in comparison to brand image. They talk a good game, but some details are missing. I am now questioning if BDs quality is as good as their marketing would have me believe.
I currently own a lot of BD stuff, well over a thousand dollars worth. My first rack was almost entirely BD. The last quick draws I purchased were BD. I love my C4s. I am not a BD hater. However, seeing how this issue was handled, I am not sure if BD has what I am looking for any more.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 11:09am PT
|
I also love BD products. My rock rack has been built around them for the twenty years I have been climbing. Have used DB ice tools only but always had Grivel Crampons. I bought the cyborgs when they came out several years ago and they felt flimsy compared to the grivels but continue to use them as they are high dollar items and I can't afford to buy a new pair every year. But when my main climbing partner bought a new pair of staineless cyborgs and had the bar linking the two pieces break and they would not warranty them it makes me question the direction the company is going. With climbning gear I think your reputation is almost everything.
Attacking the messanger is going to do nothing to make this issue go away. I think it is the metal not the type of crampons. In my experience crampons don't break and that is how they should be made.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:30pm PT
|
We watched the discussion—dominated by a handful of posters with well-documented personal vendettas against us—devolve into a series of irrational personal attacks, lies paraded as insider knowledge, and misleading and bullying of fellow forum members who voiced support for BD or asked for facts to support the claims. As the vitriol became more and more erratic, personal and baseless, we realized it would be best not to engage in such dialogue that is unconstrained by facts or respect.
This is really quite masterful on second look.
BD lets a situation fester for long enough that it gets ugly and then says that things have gotten too ugly to engage in dialogue.
Who's fault is THAT!
Peter would paint me as a bully but I'm one of the posters asking for facts.
And yes, I have a bone to pick with him not related to stainless steel snaggletooths.
But both issues boil down to exactly the same thing; candor and accountability.
|
|
GrahamJ
climber
In the rain
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:50pm PT
|
interesting that the spread of failures on the cyclic fatigue testing is much greater on the stainless sabertooths than any other crampon tested, and that the stainless sabertooths at the lowest end of the spread are failing at a much lower number of cycles than any other crampon in the test.
I'm glad BD posted this (though they could have left out the jab about personal vendettas and whatnot), but it still doesn't answer the question of whether they are getting MORE real-world failures of SS sabertooths than they did with ChroMo sabertooths. I would like to see a direct comparison of actual breakage (why did they give us data that included random, unrelated events like car fires and ABS plates melting? - maybe having those random points in there helps to obscure a high failure rate?)of SS vs ChroMo sabertooths with actual numbers.
while I agree that wading into an online discussion is not the right thing for BD to do, a simple statement, here on Supertopo or other forums where this is being discussed to say: "this is so and so at BD. We have heard that there are some issues with product X and we are looking into it. We do care, we want people climbing on our gear to trust it etc..." Doesn't need to be a back and forth on a forum like this, but a simple statement to say they were looking into it would have nipped A LOT of the negative comments towards BD in general in the bud. As a company that values brand image it blows my mind that they would not have done that.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:57pm PT
|
Piton Ron
For BD not to engage in this forum was the right thing to do.
They have their own proper place within their infrastructure (web site).
Engaging here serves them no real purpose except to exacerbate endless debate.
I doubt they have time for that.
Anyways .....
The stress tests shown were under ideal temperature conditions and not real world. ie freezing temperatures.
The stress tests should have been attempted in a cold realistic freezing environment?
You think?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2012 - 02:10pm PT
|
I've been staying out of this discussion for a variety of reasons and Werner has just summed up my opinions succinctly
So now for some facts, starting with the Very End of the BD report.
The Bottom Line
• Vertically oriented front points are best for climbing water ice and/or heavy climbers, and tend to do better in cyclic fatigue.
• Horizontal front points are best used for the alpine.
• Flexible center bars can increase the lifespan of your crampons, but at a cost of performance.
• Boots aren’t as rigid as they used to be and break down/wear in quicker.
• Use flexible center bars with truly non-rigid boots.
• Regardless of the version or model of BD crampon you own, when matched with appropriate boots and center bars, they can be trusted perform to the highest of standards.
• Just like with ice picks, no one has a magic material or process that produces an unbreakable crampon.
• Gear doesn’t last forever.
A lot of very pertinent suggestions and summaries here, regardless of which/whose crampons you use.
What I got out of the data in the report (I didn't read much of the verbiage) is:
Stainless fails at fewer fatique cycles and with a greater spread in the data than "plain" CrMo. As a mechanical engineer (not metallurgist) this doesn't surprise me. They don't specify which stainless or CrMo they use. They don't specify their heat treating process. I'm not sure I'd tell my competition either. So we're all second guessing on those issues.
They don't specify the fatigue cycle temperature. They SHOULD QC (not engineering) test at a cold temperature. Something around -20C to be sure there's not a problem at the temps we're likely to encounter.
I hadn't previously considered the strength/fatigue differences of vertical vs horizontal front points. I'm definitely getting vertical front points with flexible bars before next ice season.
The flexibility of modern boots certainly increases the fatigue problem. I've heard a lot of "YC wouldn't have let this happen". Remember BITD that Chouinard specifically made rigid crampons for stiff boots and specifically said the equivalent of "use these on less rigid boots at your own risk".
Check the fatigue life charts. Look at the video. That is some extreme fatigue cycle. Horizontal points fail earlier. Not at all surprising when you think about it.
The shortest vertical front point fatigue life is about 12000 cycles. So call it 20,000 feet of ice climbing. The shortest horizontal is about 8,000 cycles, approx 14,000 feet. Note that the fatigue test approximates or exceeds the strain with soft boots. Stiffer boots will last longer.
In the Stainless vs CrMo comparison, the stainless vertical front points do significantly better than the CrMo. Reverse for the horizontal front points.
Use the right crampon type for the climb and the boots. Minimize rock bashing. Keep 'em sharp so they penetrate more easily. Take your bloody crampons off when you've got a lot of rocky ground to cover. And you won't have to sharpen them as often either.
Gear doesn't last forever: We don't bitch about replacing ropes based upon usage. We should all plan on replacing our crampons regularly. It's not just about having the latest shiny new toy.
Maintenance and lifespan
Check your crampons before, during and after each use. Check that there are no cracks on the metallic parts.
A more thorough examination shall be made at least every year by a competent and trained person. The maximum lifespan of the crampon is 5 years of use. This lifespan can be reduced to one single use in case of severe load (fall). If you have any doubt about any piece of gear, retire and destroy it.
and My Not So Humble Opinions
One thing about BD taking a while to put this report together. A thorough report like this takes a significant time to write, then it has to be vetted by Marketing, and Legal (especially in this case) and then signed off by Metcalf. Sure, they're covering their collective arse. With the vitriol in this thread you can't blame them.
Oh.....and we ALL know to only use a hand file, never a power tool to sharpen them.....RIGHT????
And if your crampons break, send them immediately to the manufacturer. They may or may not replace them, but they need to get the failure data.
Fred Glover, P.E. Mechanical Engineering
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!