Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
kev
climber
CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 07:57pm PT
|
Ok so here the Taco Total
C3 => 2 posters
Aliens => 11 posters
Metolius => 2 posters
Other => 2 posters
Undecided => 8 posters
off topic or unclear about what cam they like => the rest of you.
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 10, 2009 - 08:02pm PT
|
We need more posters, this isn't lining up with what has been posted in the past...
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 08:12pm PT
|
Sure it is squishy... There's no doubt in my mind that most people, in this area anyway, prefer Aliens as their small cams. This thread shows that.
As I said in the most recent "Aliens are Evil" thread, the posts about failures in testing, and the couple of failures in real life, don't seem to have affected their business much at all. Places that get them can only keep them for a few hours to a couple of days. Yos, Josh, Moab, Bishop... Aliens are gone from those shops in no time flat, as soon as hundreds arrive in an order.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 08:14pm PT
|
I just bought a few master cams and haven't decided on them yet. So far I like them. I find the heads on the smaller C4s to be a bit wide. Dunno about C3s, have not tried one.
I've used aliens and like them, but have managed to live without them thus far- for no particular reason beyond the fact that, at least in the pre-intertube age, they were hard to come by and I got used to other stuff. I don't aid climb, like to climb near my limit (i.e., fall) and have mouths to feed so I'm not sure I'd buy a set now.
How are the Metolius offset TCUs?
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 08:21pm PT
|
Exactly how many alien cams have failed in the line of duty? How many have been reported? I hear about all of these "Incidents" yet no #'s have been shown. Does alien report the test results to the owner?
Number man, Numbers!
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 08:33pm PT
|
As far as I know, 2 Alien failures in the field. I know of at least that many failures for other manufacturers too tho...
I'm not denying that there is a QC issue at CCH, at all. I don't think anyone is. Thing is, there simply isn't another cam out there that works as well as the Aliens. Period. Most of my Aliens have taken and held falls, and I'll keep using them. Most people feel this way. As soon as someone either makes an exact duplicate, takes over CCH and improves QC, or maybe makes somethign better, I (and others) will think about changing...
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 08:38pm PT
|
Yeah Nefarius, but look at these failure modes - for instance brazes pulling out at well below full strength. I still use mine, but I just can't trust them, no matter how beat up/old/held falls/etc - it may have held at 50% of strength, but blow at 60%, so off the belay or for the really key pro...like I said, I hesitate reaching for them now, and my old TCUs are back on the rack (the newer TCUs suck - way too short).
|
|
adatesman
Trad climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 09:12pm PT
|
@Greg-
I don't blame you for skipping the RC thread(s). The ones on MP, Gunks, CC and SP were much better behaved. The one on ST died quickly as you all seem to be either disinterested or tired of it coming up again and again.
To be honest, I don't have an explanation for that lobe. The hardness values I got were the average of 4 tests each (where they would fit, so not the Black or Blue and given the 22 samples x 4 lobes it took a day and a half to work through) and for that lobe in particular I did 6 or 7 on because I simply could not believe it was so different from the others. CCH states on their website that they use 6061T6 extrusions for the lobes and a former CCH employee has confirmed that they machine the lobes in a single operation on a multi-axis lathe (hence the misdrilled hole issue... there's no fixture to screw up since it isn't done on a drill press). 6061 denotes the alloy (aluminum with trace quantities of silicon, manganese, etc) and T6 denotes the heat treating (solution hardened and aged, if I remember correctly).
One would assume that all of the lobes on a single cam would have come from the same production run and therefore have similar hardness values, so either this one was left over from a previous run or something was done to it. Mind you, this cam was brand new and sitting on the shelf at Rock&Snow so the chances of malicious tinkering are nil. That said I tested all but 1 of the cams from the testing at R&S and the hardnesses are all over the map. Most are either around HRB45 (which agrees with the hardness of lobes I sent out for testing a while back) or HRB55 (which is where 6061T6 should be), but I found a bunch around HRB30 and a single cam that couldn't be measured on the HRB scale because it was dead soft. Converting from the HRE scale (same force but larger penetrator) those four lobes came out HRB1 -> HRB12. I won't go so far as to say CCH is/was doing something to soften the lobes, but given their reputation for having soft lobes, the variability of hardness values I've seen and distance from spec from what they claim to use I simply don't see how an extruding company can stay in business when providing material so far out of spec.
Oh, and I'm sure there's others that can explain the finer points of this (don't know about here on ST, but the guy I have in mind is a metallurgy major who follows MP and RC) but in general as hardness goes down so does strength, which would explain the buckled cam lobe.
And in case you haven't checked out RC lately, there's a subforum called The Lab which is mostly lacking in the typical RC drama and completely focused on gear design theory, testing, etc. Full disclosure: I'm kinda in charge in The Lab, which came about by way of them wanting to put someone in charge of it and me being the most active person in there. Aside from 2 articles RC paid me for (the Needless Destruction Theater ones) I'm not employed by RC in any way, shape or form and am simply an engineering geek who spends his free time breaking stuff and posting about it because it amuses me and other people seem to find it interesting.
-aric.
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
Guam
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 09:20pm PT
|
aliens
|
|
Brendan
Trad climber
Yosemite, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 09:40pm PT
|
If you are going to get into aiding, the three enlongated lobe design of the C3s is the tits for tipped out placements. Aliens are great too. I would suggest 000, 00, 0 size C3s and the rest aliens. The super small aliens are funky, and have the tendency to rotate in marginal placements.
If you are thinking about getting into aiding, DO NOT buy Master cams. Aiding can require very specific placements, sometimes directionalized in all kinds of funny ways. * The "wires" (in this case strings of the master cams) that attach the trigger to the lobes are too short or just designed improperly. When placed inverted (lobes below the slings), after it is weighted, the "wires" come tight and automatically release the lobes of the cam.
Check out the pictures I have here, and if any of you have Master cams, test them for yourselves...
This design flaw almost made me deck into a ledge during a solo of the Prow... lame.
|
|
adatesman
Trad climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 09:50pm PT
|
First off, sorry for the thread drift... This all really belongs over in the CCH testing thread. Sorry about that.
@Mucci- Well, if its numbers you want the two random samples that first showed up on my doorstep both failed well under rated strength. One was bootied but ended up having an obvious manufacturing defect (of the 4.5kN variety) upon cross sectioning. The other I personally bought off a guy on MP with the intent of breaking on the puller and it failed in a new manner well below rating.
Of the 22 more I tested at Rock & Snow (13 New and 9 Used) only 5 of the 13 new ones failed above their rated strength, with the percentage of the rating held ranging from 63.3% to 116.7% and an overall average of 94.3%. Of the 9 used Aliens, only 2 failed above their rated strength, with the percentage of the rating held ranging from 54.7% to 105.0% and an overall average of 81.9%.
I'm not sure those are the numbers you want to hear, but they're the only ones I have.
If you're looking for hearsay, an employee of a prominent Colorado gear shop told me that they stopped carrying Aliens a while back because of the number of failed post-recall units they had returned. Not wanting to get involved in this mess they kept their mouths shut about it, but upon some poking while trying on harnesses last year he passed on some details.
I've also seen test results from one of the other gear manufacturers that shows most Aliens failing well below rating that they could not publish due to accusations of bias, but will not drag them into this mess. I am willing to let my results stand on their own merits as I'm 100% confident they're correct, and frankly I gave CCH ample opportunity to handle this issue in any manner they saw fit prior to making my results public. Unfortunately they chose to ignore the results and question my motivations instead of addressing the real problem. Such is life, and I've now spent the majority of the past 3 weeks documenting what I've found to pass along to anyone who needs it (I've already passed preliminary results onto the UIAA at their request, and will be passing on the full report once it's finished).
Personally I'd much rather see CCH get their act together and start producing quality product, but given the treatment I've received from them I have my doubts whether that will happen.
BTW, the pics above don't include the two cams that started this mess. Cross sections of them are over in the other thread, but here there are again. On top is the Purple that pulled out at ~10.5kN (1/05), then the Red that failed at ~4.5kN due to there being no braze in the joint (7/02) and the bottom being another Red I broke a while back that had the stem overheated which broke at ~11.3kN (11/06).
But as mentioned before this is just a witch hunt and I'm simply trying to defame CCH over some petty grievance I've had with them over the taste of their urinal cakes.
EDIT- BTW, speaking of hearsay, some guy over on MP claimed to have gotten a former CCH employee drunk and talking one night, during which the former CCH employee explained how they'd heat the lobes with a blowtorch and toss them in a bucket of water somewhere in their manufacturing process. Certainly well within the range of things I'd immediately write off as untrue as a matter of course, but it would very conveniently explain the variability in hardness of the lobes that I found. And before I get accused of making this up, go check out the thread(s) on MP. I don't have a link handy and won't go to the trouble of finding it, but its there.
EDITx2- Sorry about that, just resized the pic to something more appropriate.
EDITx3- What the heck... If you haven't already go take some pics of your Aliens and run them through the Cam Fitter. Its written by the guy who invented the Supercam, who developed it back when there were murmurings years ago about Aliens being drilled off-center. CCH ignored his findings, but frankly there's no disputing the results. Out of the 22 cams I tested at Rock & Snow the effective cam angles ranged from 7 to 28 degrees. I'll have pics of it all posted in The Lab on RC hopefully tomorrow, but more likely by Monday as I've gotten nothing done tonight and still have a couple days work to do.
|
|
adatesman
Trad climber
philadelphia, pa
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009 - 01:02am PT
|
Captain/Skully-
Yeesh means:
1. not expecting that tangent?
2. not happy with that tangent?
3. tired of hearing about it?
Sorry for dredging this topic up in another thread here on ST, but I wasn't so happy so see someone who hadn't participated in the discussions regarding the testing bitching about them out of context. I generally try to just be a lurker here, but seeing someone accuse me of simply trying to drive page views at RC with this rubbed me the wrong way.
-aric.
|
|
kc
Trad climber
lg, ca
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009 - 01:42am PT
|
aliens, aliens, aliens. oh, and offset aliens. Like any gear, if you place it correctly, it will hold.
Did I say aliens? Ok then, aliens.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009 - 01:51am PT
|
Adatesman:"but I wasn't so happy so see someone who hadn't participated in the discussions regarding the testing bitching about them out of context."
I have been following, I appreciate the testing that you have done/presented to us. This is way out of my scope but hearing your testimony based on personal experience was creepy. Must have missed the Numbers.
Didn't mean to come off so "ignorant" with my question.
Good answer
cheers
EDIT: Aliens Rule, not to mention the rude falls I've seen/taken on them.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009 - 03:54am PT
|
When it gets down to the smallest cams (#00, #0), in cracks, I more often than not reach for Lowe/Byrne ball nuts. I'm done with Aliens, Metolius work, C3s suck, micro cams really suck, and the L/B ball nuts are rated higher in those sizes than cams and have never, ever failed me.
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009 - 10:09am PT
|
Master Cams
I bought them used them then went back to Aliens (after I had 2 Aliens fail in a pull test). I was trying to use Master Cams exactly like Aliens.
Later went back to Master Cams and learned to use them they Master Cams want to be used... Now, no aliens on my rack and I'm happy about it (except I have 6 sets of Aliens also offsets that sit on the shelf now).
And before the spray comes, yes I aid climb, and yes I have taken them up El Cap.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009 - 10:38am PT
|
ryanb wrote: Sorry if I came off as a jerk but that is not safe. 90 deg placements might hold body weight for aiding but I think there is a good bulk of evidence that they are way sketch as lead gear.
You're understating the problem with Mastercams. Sure, vertical bottoming placements are tough on any gear (and far, far moreso with Mastercams) but horizontal placements over an edge are terrible with Mastercams, too!
That's the main reason why I wouldn't climb on Mastercams at the Gunks. Put one over a horizontal edge, and where any other cam would behave properly, a Mastercam's trigger wires will rotate into horizontal configuration, and retract the cam lobes.
F*#k that!
I'm sure you don't have that many horizontals in the granite where you climb, so it's not an issue for you, but it sure is for me.
GO
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:53am PT
|
Got to go with Chris Mac and Greg, Aliens but wish they'd get their quality sh#t together. Of course, it looks like that won't happen ever as they've had multiple opportunities and keep F*ing the dog.
Mucci, there was a thread on RC.com listing all the other threads with Alien cam failures and it was extensive and long. It involved "TENSILE TESTED" failure links as well, so you should go find it. You can still use your aliens, but won't be doing so like the guy on Soulders crack who just missed being a fatality (he posts as "Pins and Bones" or something like that) when he had a tested Yellow Alien fall apart after he ran it out then fell onto it.
Mastercams a close 2nd but #1 for free climbing.
What I still don't understand is this: with ALL of the misdrilled hole evidence which seems to indicate that perhaps over 90 percent of the Aliens are produced with a bad or incorrect cam geometry, why do they still hold so well in placements?
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009 - 12:03pm PT
|
I'd like to thank adatesman, actually, for all of the work you've put into this. Seriously. It certainly helps us to be able to make that an informed choice, when it comes to Aliens. Who knows, maybe it will help sink some sense into CCH's head... Or at least a proper braze!
High five, dude.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!