|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
Injury Treatment and Prevention:
Re: [bspisak] Souders Crack 11d groundfall:
Edit Log
|
|
bobruef
May 22, 2007, 2:52 PM
Views: 13554
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
bspisak wrote: “The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it”
How true, how true. Though I'm not sure I'm interpreting that as you intended it to be
bspisak wrote: Jan 2, 2006 - Orange Alien CCH http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104150 Jan 4, 2006 - CCH response to alleged defect http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104279 Oct 9, 2005 - Possible Problem with new CCH Aliens.... http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1207666 Jan 6, 2006 - REI recall Orange Alien http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104434 Jan 10, 2006 - rei/mgear no longer selling aliens? http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104714 These threads are partially related to the improperly drilled axel hole and finally the REI recall. With respect to the axel issue, I had heard about this on this site (or perhaps ST) and had just received an orange alien for Xmas and lo’ and behold it was one that was incorrectly drilled. It went back to REI along with a letter to the store manager on all the related info. This is certainly poor Quality Control, but people also fault CCH for not responding specifically to this issue. Perhaps CCH determined that the affected cams where covered by the general recall (this all happened around the same time.) Perhaps they determined that the only cams affected were sent to REI and REI issued the recall as well. Perhaps they found that only a few of these had actually been sold. Perhaps they did some analysis that showed holding power was not effected, just effective range. I don’t know for sure, but neither does anyone else to the contrary. Yet, that doesn’t stop the arm-chair mechanical engineers from commenting ad-museum about how irresponsible CCH was.
Wow, just wow.
bspisak wrote: Feb 20, 2006 - Another Alien falls apart! Not a dimpled one. http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1316740 This one was clearly a CCH fuckup, but it was not due to a general issue with poor quality control. This guy sends a cam in for some unrelated reason, and gets a new one back. Unfortunately, some stoopid secretary pulls a cam from the production floor; only she grabs it from a work in progress bin and not the finished Q/A checked bin. Yes, that should not happen, but it isn’t a sign of a systemic failure. It’s more a sign of a small company reeling from a recent recall that could cost their customers life or limb.
You cite negligence as if it were justification for the incident? Get a grip man.
Reading your posts made me think of this line from "In Search of Lost Time". You really hammered the relevency of the following quote into my head. Read it closely, or you'll miss the point:
Marcel Proust wrote: the fact that our intellect is not the most subtle, the most powerful, the most appropriate instrument for grasping the truth, is only a reason the more for beginning with the intellect, and not with a subconscious intuition, a ready-made faith in presentiments. It is life that, little by little, case by case, enables us to observe that what is most important to our heart, or to our mind, is learned not by reasoning but by other powers. And then it is the intellect itself which, taking note of their superiority, abdicates its sway to them upon reasoned grounds and consents to become their collaborator and their servant.
Aug 21, 2006 - CCH Cam Failure
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1435781
Aug 30, 2006 - CCH ALIENS -- For Immediate Release
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1440473
In reply to: This unsubstantiated Paradise Forks failure generates all kinds of nasty responses and hate messages about CCH.
Unsubstantiated? CCH released a statement about this cam. You use the context of this statement to reason that all cams from the following incidnet were recalled (which is obviously false), and the pretend it didn't happen here in order to call the incident unsubstantiated. Unbelievable. You have absolutely no Intellectual credibility.
In reply to: In the end, it did turn out to be a recalled cam.
Actually CCH's statement said the following:
CCH wrote: It is however still unknown if this unit was clearly dimpled.
The fact that the company that could be held responsible is making a claim of ambiguity over whether or not the unit was dimpled, say a lot. If nothing else, they're indicating that whether or not the cam was recalled is certainly questionable. In fact, they're entire statement on the issue points to that uncertainty, as they ask that all cams from that period be sent in for testing.
I think you're not quite in-touch with reality here.
In reply to: May 15, 2007 - ALIEN FAILURE, 5/15/07 http://www.rockclimbing.com/...m/gforum.cgi?1596942 This cam was found to be a recall cam. Nevertheless it is still being referred to as yet another incident of a post-recall cam failure. Check your facts people.
Check your facts buddy. This cam had no dimple. Therefore, it was not recalled. CCH's comments on this or that website notwithstanding, they never ever recalled non-dimpled units. I think again, this is a clear indication of you letting your rational mind become a servant of your sentimentality.
In reply to: May 1, 2007 - 2 new Post-recall Alien failures. http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1589517 Not sure which “2 new” failures are being referred to. One is related to this thread, the other? (Both links are to the same thread.) Perhaps it is the 5/15 cam?
5/15 cam would be the third failure
The first would be the Souders Crack cam that this thread refers to.
Purple cam @ Indian Creek would be the second cam. Events surrounding that incident were substantiated by Mal from Trango, who, is arguably the most respected leader in the climbing industry.
----
In reply to: Apr 11, 2007 - Souders Crack (11d) ground fall http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1575796 Now back to this thread. There are some important unanswered questions here. Where's the cam? CCH has posted on their site asking that the guy send the cam in for analysis. It’s been a month. We keep hearing he’s too busy. What gives?
Actually the metalurgist in question refused to test the cam when pins tried to send it to them. Sounds like they're gearing up for some legal action that could come CCH's way.
In reply to: A wise man changes his mind, a fool never
In the end, I didn't go over all of the stuff you posted, because it really took me very little time to see how incredibly deluded you've let yourself become over all of this. I suppose I lost the respect for you as a reasonable human being. At this point in the CCH debacle, there are two kinds of people: Those in touch with reality, and those who are not. After the first Alien failure, the lines were a little more fuzzy. At this point, it cannot get any more clear.
Do you really think that someone is going to find out that pins was belayed on a static rope, off of a grigri anchored statically to the wall? I think not. Even if such an unbelievable situation happened, the cam lobe would have been messed up. In order for an alien to fail at full strenght, an enormous load would have been placed on those little lobes. Anyone who's ever fallen on an alien can attest to the maliability of their lobes.
The hardest part in responding to your posts has been convincing myslef that you are completely serious. It's almost as hard to accept that as to accept what has happened to my wonderful aliens.
(This post was edited by bobruef on May 22, 2007, 3:05 PM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by bobruef
() on May 22, 2007, 2:52 PM
|
|
Post edited by bobruef
() on May 22, 2007, 2:54 PM
|
|
Post edited by bobruef
() on May 22, 2007, 2:57 PM
|
|
Post edited by bobruef
() on May 22, 2007, 3:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
