|
emartinblue
Aug 22, 2006, 12:57 AM
Post #1 of 194
(42788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 5
|
Unfortunately another CCH Alien has failed this time resulting in a serious injury. Although at this time I will not go into specifics concerning the accident, the cam was an orange CCH, it had an early 2004 manufacture date. I do know that this cam did not have a “dimple” located at the base of the ball on the socket (as is listed on the CCH website).
The only reason that I am providing this information is so that others will discontinue their use of newer CCH products until they can be properly tested.
|
|
|
|
|
emartinblue
Aug 22, 2006, 1:01 AM
Post #2 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 5
|
Unfortunately another CCH Alien has failed this time resulting in a serious injury. Although at this time I will not go into specifics concerning the accident, the cam was an orange CCH, it had an early 2004 manufacture date. I do know that this cam did not have a “dimple” located at the base of the ball on the socket (as is listed on the CCH website).
The only reason that I am providing this information is so that others will discontinue their use of newer CCH products until they can be properly tested.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 22, 2006, 1:13 AM
Post #3 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Why the lack in details?? you have zero credibility without them.
Also, the new cams ARE being tested.. the cam you are talking about is from '04 why are you attacking CCH's NEW cams for an issue with an OLD cam?
i'd say post up some details or don your flameproof jacket
also, one forum is plenty of coverage for a weak ass story..
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 22, 2006, 1:34 AM
Post #4 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
I was not a witness to the accident. I spoke with someone who was and who helped in the evacuation of the injured climber. I believe he was the person who cleaned the gear from the route and gave the cam which failed to the sheriffs dept for their investigation. He specifically mentioned that it did not have the dimple....which if it was made in early 2004 it would not.
If anyone has any news on the condition of the climber I would be interested to hear it. It sounds as if the actions of those who were around that day probably helped his chances greatly....they had him to an accessible area before the rescue squad got there. It certainly makes me feel better knowing that there are people who have the knowledge and experience to provide that level of support for a fellow climber.
I am being specifically vague as I do not know specifics and do not feel that the area and time are of consequence to this thread.
I have, up until this point, been supportive of CCH and have been using my aliens, ( dated from late 03 and early 04). I understand the types of circumstances that could lead to that type of oversight as a small company tries to expand and meet demand. It appears the the problem is not limited to the cams brazed by that particular vendor. The report that CCH has made available on their website indicates that it was improper cooling that may have caused the defect in the braze. With a 100% inspection process in place, as they seem to be implementing, these types of defects would be caught as they would fail. I intend to have have my Aliens tested, either through CCH or on my own so that I will feel comfortable climbing above them.
I usually try to protect climbs such that the failure, either due to a bad placement or a mechanical failure such as this, will not result in me hitting something harder than I am. This is sometimes impossible or Impractical in certain situations and on certain climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2006, 1:47 AM
Post #5 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Do either of you guys know if this cam failed at the braze?
|
|
|
|
|
tagaustatoppen
Aug 22, 2006, 1:49 AM
Post #6 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 93
|
for someone with 5 posts thats a brave comment
|
|
|
|
|
stevematthys
Aug 22, 2006, 2:02 AM
Post #7 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2000
Posts: 1248
|
that sucks, did the cam fail on you?
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 22, 2006, 2:05 AM
Post #8 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Jeremy thanks for sharing what you DO know. That is far better than sounding the alarm and running away. That is great that the first responders acted quickly and got them to help.
Jay my thoughts exactly.. there is a huge difference between a cam failure and a placement failure.. that is the kind of detail that needs to be shared.
|
|
|
|
|
breaksnclimbs
Aug 22, 2006, 2:06 AM
Post #9 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2003
Posts: 203
|
That does suck!!! :shock: :shock:
It seems like it's THE ORANGE Ones that have failed.
IIRC It was an orange one that started the whole mess. . .
Too bad I hope your friend is OK. Why no specifics??
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 22, 2006, 2:07 AM
Post #10 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Can one of the mod's condense this into one thread? this is going to get stupid confusing with 2 conversations going at once
|
|
|
|
|
tagaustatoppen
Aug 22, 2006, 2:08 AM
Post #11 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 93
|
didn't i just read this some where else?
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Aug 22, 2006, 2:14 AM
Post #12 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
Was it one of the orange aliens with the improperly drilled axle holes? That would make cch look really bad.
|
|
|
|
|
zara
Aug 22, 2006, 3:27 AM
Post #13 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2004
Posts: 60
|
Is there a link to some more specific details.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 22, 2006, 3:39 AM
Post #14 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
In reply to: Is there a link to some more specific details.
no.. the OP seems to think it's a good idea to yell FIRE! and withold the details. But seems quite bitter towards CCH for no aparent reason.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Aug 22, 2006, 4:16 AM
Post #15 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
All my aliens are older, so I'm not too worried about mine. With everthing that has happened with CCH recently, especially with how public all their problems have been, I can't believe that a climber would use cams of that generation without having them pull tested (for free, by CCH).
It's not like this guy didn't know about CCH's troubles. With all the publicity, it's come full circle. No longer is it about CCH liability as much as it is personal responsibility.
Bottom line, get your 2004 and newer cams tested.
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 22, 2006, 5:01 AM
Post #16 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
Good news..I was just talking to someone at the gym and it sounds as if he is doing OK. Coherent and aware of who he is at least.
I have heard several slightly different versions of what happened but they are all pretty similar..just the details are a bit fuzzy. Appears to have been a series of factors that led to him getting injured...not some serious error on the climbers part. This is a good reminder that its best to not rely on a single piece if you can help it.
As far as the cam...I did not see it but the first hand description I got was that the wire had separated from the "head" of the cam...this would seem to indicate that the braze failed. Being from early 04 it would not be affected by the recall... there was no dimple and the date was before the 11/04 date stated in the recall notice. http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/...nchor_PR_4-11-06.pdf
Several of my pieces have dates of 1004 and the like and I have been climbing on them.
If it is indeed a change in way that the piece is cooled the results in a fracture inside the braze, and therefore a very low strength, and this was a cam that was brazed by CCH and not some other shop ( I have no idea if this is the case, their report only talks about brazes failing from a particular source and does not mention whether other shops were used at other times for brazing), I feel that it is reasonable to question the integrity of even the older cams produced by CCH as it would appear there was some part of the process that may not have been controlled as well as it needed to be. As I mentioned earlier I plan on returning my aliens to service as soon as I can satisfactorily test them. Based on what I know about brazing ( which isn't a great deal, just the basics) this type of failure would be pretty easy to detect with a simple pull test, maybe even a vigorous bounce test. I have not decided what I am going to do with mine, but your best bet would be to send them to CCH to be tested.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 22, 2006, 5:46 AM
Post #17 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: Unfortunately another CCH Alien has failed this time resulting in a serious injury. Although at this time I will not go into specifics concerning the accident, the cam was an orange CCH, it had an early 2004 manufacture date. I do know that this cam did not have a “dimple” located at the base of the ball on the socket (as is listed on the CCH website). The only reason that I am providing this information is so that others will discontinue their use of newer CCH products until they can be properly tested.
Was there any particular "State" or "Area" or name of a climb that this happened at? Saying like "California" or "Utah" would help narrow down the specifics a little, but saying "Joe was on the second pitch of "Blow chunks" which as you know is in "Death Crag" in Wyoming state" would help us understand better, along with details of who was there, length of fall blah blah blah, maybe some things LIKE that.
If you can't remember any of that, could you at least let us know if this happended in "Canada" or "Mexico" or some other "Country". Like the Balukistan or Kyzikstan for christ sake.
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Aug 22, 2006, 5:48 AM
Post #18 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2003
Posts: 663
|
ouch
details, details...the devil is always in the details. all my aliens are 0202 with one 0102 date stamp...yet i'm sitting here staring at them, wondering wtf...
when, exactly, did REI pick up CCH ? was it in 04 ? curious how the dates line up is all...and does a static bounce in aiders really come close to the load a pull test would use ? (edit/add)
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 22, 2006, 5:54 AM
Post #19 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: didn't i just read this some where else?
Injuries. I asked if we could get some details, like which country this was in.
What area, what route, what pitch, who was belaying, who was watching, corroborating evidence, pictures, what was the length of fall, blah de blah blah blah.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Aug 22, 2006, 5:56 AM
Post #20 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: In reply to: Unfortunately another CCH Alien has failed this time resulting in a serious injury. Although at this time I will not go into specifics concerning the accident, the cam was an orange CCH, it had an early 2004 manufacture date. I do know that this cam did not have a “dimple” located at the base of the ball on the socket (as is listed on the CCH website). The only reason that I am providing this information is so that others will discontinue their use of newer CCH products until they can be properly tested. Was there any particular "State" or "Area" or name of a climb that this happened at? Saying like "California" or "Utah" would help narrow down the specifics a little, but saying "Joe was on the second pitch of "Blow chunks" which as you know is in "Death Crag" in Wyoming state" would help us understand better, along with details of who was there, length of fall blah blah blah, maybe some things LIKE that. If you can't remember any of that, could you at least let us know if this happended in "Canada" or "Mexico" or some other "Country". Like the Balukistan or Kyzikstan for christ sake. Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Aug 22, 2006, 7:07 AM
Post #21 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
What would be nice is if the poster waited until he could provide detailed information before posting about something as serious as another cam failure.
Something along the lines of: "Someone was climbing and his cam broke" is not a valid way of providing an accident report.
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Aug 22, 2006, 2:13 PM
Post #23 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
light up those torches and sharpen those pitchforks..... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Aug 22, 2006, 2:28 PM
Post #24 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
In reply to: All my aliens are older, so I'm not too worried about mine. With everthing that has happened with CCH recently, especially with how public all their problems have been, I can't believe that a climber would use cams of that generation without having them pull tested (for free, by CCH). It's not like this guy didn't know about CCH's troubles. With all the publicity, it's come full circle. No longer is it about CCH liability as much as it is personal responsibility. Bottom line, get your 2004 and newer cams tested.
I completely disagree that it is inappropriate for the OP and others to sound a warning without details. Given CCH's history with defects it is good that people know that there might be a problem with other cams that have not been recalled before finding out the hard way. My Aliens are all older too, but why do we trust pre-2004 Aliens? If this one failed, how do we know a cam made in 2000 or 1998 won't fail too? They claimed to have found the problem with the recalled cams, but if true, this accident would prove that cams outside of the recall are bad as well. I have to admit I am beginning to have doubts about my older (pre 2000) Aliens as well.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 22, 2006, 2:30 PM
Post #25 of 194
(42786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Thanks, Phil. I agree. Considering the low level of detail available at this point, it's useless to speculate. The first thing we need is a picture or first-hand discription of the cam, because right now, it's entirely possible that this is a straight-up case of user error.
EDIT: That said, I can't help but agree, at least in principle, with this statement:
In reply to: It's not like this guy didn't know about CCH's troubles. With all the publicity, it's come full circle. No longer is it about CCH liability as much as it is personal responsibility.
The second I read CCH's infamous hoax statement, I decided on the spot that no Aliens would ever find a home on my rack. It was easy -- I was already leaning that way thanks to their denial of any safety issues arising from mis-drilled axle-holes. Even before this thread, I was of the opinion that faith in any single CCH cam that had not been tested goes beyond mere blindness and into the realm of the irrational, regardless of the date it was produced.
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 22, 2006, 2:44 PM
Post #26 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
You guys should be appreciative that the OP took the time to pass that little tidbit of information on as they obviously felt it was important to share. Being as it is a new development in an ongoing list of problems what they did seems very reasonable. The location and information about the climber are irrelevant to what they posted. It is rather pathetic that this site has gotten to the point where no one believes anyone else unless they have "pictures" and "facts"....facts are often hard to come by soon after an accident like this and posting guesses and rumors doesn't help anyone. And whoever correlated post count to what someone can post should be smacked.
I hope that the next time the OP has some information like this they will again be kinda enough to share it and not decide to forgo the verbal abuse by a bunch of Internet wankers who think they are superior because they have 1000's of posts. Ever think that maybe the reason the OP only has 5 posts is they are too busy climbing to dick around here?
As for information, I'm only going to post what i know for sure. Ive heard a lot more but don't want to start any rumors.
The accident happened on Saturday, august 19th at Paradise Forks outside Williams, AZ.
The climber was on "the prow", some distance into the thin hands crack off of the large ledge.
He weighted a piece (the orange alien) a which came apart and he fell and hit the ledge below.
He sustained a massive head wound toward the top of his head. The people he was climbing with worked to quickly stop the bleeding and the witness that I talked to, who was a nurse, stated that there was obvious swelling/internal bleeding. He was not wearing a helmet and based on what I was told by the witness that was certainly a contributing factor to the severity of the injury.
I don't know any details on where he was taken or who he was. If you are concerned that you may know him pm me and I will tell you what I have heard.
If I hear anything about his condition I will post it.
Climb Safe.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Aug 22, 2006, 3:00 PM
Post #28 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: You guys should be appreciative that the OP took the time to pass that little tidbit of information on as they obviously felt it was important to share. Being as it is a new development in an ongoing list of problems what they did seems very reasonable.
Nope, it's yet another example of a useless post on rc.com that does more harm than good. The OP is obligated to give enough info that it's at least slightly credible. He/she didn't do that. If they knew enough to sound the alarm, they knew enough to convince everyone it was legit.
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Aug 22, 2006, 3:04 PM
Post #29 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
Does anyone remember when boadman said this in the thread about the first alien failure?
In reply to: After having worked at CCH for a summer, I would be a little leary of climbing on any aliens that I hadn't made myself. The holding power of the unit depends solely on the quality of the weld between the cable and the piece that holds the axle. Welding is more of an art than a science, and while David Waggoner is a very competent machinist and designer, a lot of his employees are pretty suspect. I would have more confidence in my redneck uncle Randy. However, the design of the cam (outside of the manufacturing) is by far the best of any small cam on the market.
He got totaly flamed for it at the time, but I think that right now he gets to say "I told you so". It seems like this has been the problem in all the alien accidents, and it is impossible to know how many cams are out there which could potentially have the same issue. I still climb above my aliens, but my opinion of cch as a company is not as high as it once was.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Aug 22, 2006, 3:10 PM
Post #30 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
In reply to: In reply to: You guys should be appreciative that the OP took the time to pass that little tidbit of information on as they obviously felt it was important to share. Being as it is a new development in an ongoing list of problems what they did seems very reasonable. Nope, it's yet another example of a useless post on rc.com that does more harm than good. The OP is obligated to give enough info that it's at least slightly credible. He/she didn't do that. If they knew enough to sound the alarm, they knew enough to convince everyone it was legit.
What a load of BS. So you're saying that a company that has had products known to be defective has more credibility than a person trying to help others from possibly being injured. Look how long it took the last incident to be deemed "credible". If CCH had a stellar reputation it'd be one thing, but given their history, I certainly don't mind a potential false alarm if there is even a small possibility that this turns out to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Aug 22, 2006, 3:23 PM
Post #31 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
so, what are we all racking for small active pro now? :lol:
I know I'm obligated to give more info., but it's hilariously obvious who is (was?) an Alien fan here.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Aug 22, 2006, 3:58 PM
Post #32 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: What a load of BS. So you're saying that a company that has had products known to be defective has more credibility than a person trying to help others from possibly being injured. Look how long it took the last incident to be deemed "credible". If CCH had a stellar reputation it'd be one thing, but given their history, I certainly don't mind a potential false alarm if there is even a small possibility that this turns out to be true.
Makes no difference whatsoever what the brand is, the OP made a worthless post when they had the opportunity, and responsibility, to make it an informative one. It would have taken a couple more minutes to add sufficient detail to head off much of the rampant speculation. Anonymous posters have zero credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Aug 22, 2006, 4:14 PM
Post #33 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
In reply to: In reply to: What a load of BS. So you're saying that a company that has had products known to be defective has more credibility than a person trying to help others from possibly being injured. Look how long it took the last incident to be deemed "credible". If CCH had a stellar reputation it'd be one thing, but given their history, I certainly don't mind a potential false alarm if there is even a small possibility that this turns out to be true. Makes no difference whatsoever what the brand is, the OP made a worthless post when they had the opportunity, and responsibility, to make it an informative one. It would have taken a couple more minutes to add sufficient detail to head off much of the rampant speculation. Anonymous posters have zero credibility.
Well, I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. It makes a world of difference to me what the brand is. Some companies have earned my trust and others have lost it. I'll agree that details would be nice and if this is real they will come out. If it proves to not be real, then there is no harm to me. Every gear failure thread on this site I have seen so far started with a bunch of people telling the OP's it was a fake or that they had no credibility. The details always come out long after the threads were started and some turned out to be veryreal problems.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 22, 2006, 4:17 PM
Post #34 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
I'd like to have my Aliens reliably tested (ie NOT by CCH). Does anyone know where I can have this done? If so, how much does testing cost, what is turnaround like, and does testing weaken the cams/deform the lobes in any way? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Aug 22, 2006, 5:07 PM
Post #35 of 194
(33543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
[quote:c7bd535d8b="jsj42"]I'd like to have my Aliens reliably tested (ie NOT by CCH). Does anyone know where I can have this done? If so, how much does testing cost, what is turnaround like, and does testing weaken the cams/deform the lobes in any way? Thanks.[/quote:c7bd535d8b]
Calling FISH. Russ, are you set up to pull test Aliens to 8KN?
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Aug 22, 2006, 5:25 PM
Post #36 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
In reply to: I'd like to have my Aliens reliably tested (ie NOT by CCH). Does anyone know where I can have this done? If so, how much does testing cost, what is turnaround like, and does testing weaken the cams/deform the lobes in any way? Thanks.
Best wishes to the climber who was injured and hope you have a speedy recovery.
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Aug 22, 2006, 5:32 PM
Post #37 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
In reply to: Thanks, Phil. I agree. Considering the low level of detail available at this point, it's useless to speculate. The first thing we need is a picture or first-hand discription of the cam, because right now, it's entirely possible that this is a straight-up case of user error. EDIT: That said, I can't help but agree, at least in principle, with this statement: In reply to: It's not like this guy didn't know about CCH's troubles. With all the publicity, it's come full circle. No longer is it about CCH liability as much as it is personal responsibility. The second I read CCH's infamous hoax statement, I decided on the spot that no Aliens would ever find a home on my rack. It was easy -- I was already leaning that way thanks to their denial of any safety issues arising from mis-drilled axle-holes. Even before this thread, I was of the opinion that faith in any single CCH cam that had not been tested goes beyond mere blindness and into the realm of the irrational, regardless of the date it was produced.
I did something similar. I get pro like this...all stoppers, cams( except aliens) and tricams I try to place safely first. If nothing else fits and I decided to carry an alien or two just in case....I slot it cause nothing else will fit ....and I figure it is better than nothing and possibly fine??? but who knows...So basically I use them as on "oh shit nothing else fits here...i have to use an alien..."
I was totally bummed about it but its not worth it to me. I love aliens, but I don't love em that much. It can probably be tracked to this or that but you can't tell me that when you are run-out ,above an alien, it won't cross your mind that serveral of these piceces have failed or have at least have people claiming that they have failed. I decided that I don't want anything crossing my mind other than the move infront of me.
It doesn't suck as bad for me as some people because I only have 6 aliens out of 35-40 cams so it just sucks for when I am jiggling a camalot to try and get it to fit where an alien would slide right in.
I just can't use them anymore... too bad for CCH. they are going down slowly. Climbing is all about confidence. And confidence in your gear is a big part. There are just too many things going wrong over there at CCH...whatever they are I chose not to be apart of it...
I certainly would never tell anyone else they are wrong for using them...its just my personal choice.
stay safe...
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 22, 2006, 5:54 PM
Post #38 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
azrockclimber, you took every last word right out of my mouth. That's exactly how I feel.
There was a day when I'd blitz easier climbs with just a rack of Aliens and wires -- so nice to have a rack as light as a bunch of quickdraws. Those days might be gone. Almost every time I launch up new territory I carry a full set of micro camalots and aliens through red -- I love the camalots but like to have slightly different pieces. But I found myself avoiding using the aliens if the camalots would fit...
I can't even remember the last time I placed my blue alien. Two years ago I bootied a purple TCU at the NRG. Since then I've placed that piece alone probably more than I've placed all my aliens combined.
I want to keep using them... I just am not quite sold on Zero's and Metolius has a few limitations that I don't like. But at this point I need to get them pull-tested before I can trust them. Even then the negative vibe I have for these cams feels like a cancer knawing away at my confidence. Man, I even find myself not trusting camalots because of this. I wish I never read these reports.
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 22, 2006, 7:18 PM
Post #39 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
There was a mention of the incident in the local paper...the full page is linked below.
"Rock climber injured
A 22-year-old Peoria man out rock climbing at Sycamore Falls in Sycamore Canyon south of Flagstaff was injured in a 20-foot fall Saturday afternoon.
According to information from the Coconino County Sheriff's Office, Search and Rescue crews found the victim had fallen onto a ledge after a piece of rock climbing equipment failed. Other climbers in the area conducted a rescue and raised the victim to the top of the cliff. He was transported by air ambulance to Flagstaff Medical Center. His condition is listed as serious.
SAR members would like to remind climbers to wear helmets and inspect their equipment before and after each use."
http://www.azdailysun.com/...22_police_log_34.txt
If you want pictures of the cam maybe can call Coconino County Sherriffs Office and request one.
|
|
|
|
|
nnowinowski
Aug 22, 2006, 7:20 PM
Post #40 of 194
(33544 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 84
|
did you get that piece off regata de blank at bubba? Congrats if you did.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Aug 22, 2006, 7:53 PM
Post #41 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: I was totally bummed about it but its not worth it to me. I love aliens, but I don't love em that much. It can probably be tracked to this or that but you can't tell me that when you are run-out ,above an alien, it won't cross your mind that serveral of these piceces have failed or have at least have people claiming that they have failed. I decided that I don't want anything crossing my mind other than the move infront of me.
The irony is that a LOT more carabiners have failed in recent years than Aliens, yet most climbers don't give it a second thought to run out a route where a broken biner means decking. Nor do most climbers even consider open gate strength when buying biners. Personally, I don't trust a Zero/C3/TCU/whatever any more than Aliens -- all small cams are suspect since there is so little room for error.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Aug 22, 2006, 8:03 PM
Post #42 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
In reply to: In reply to: I was totally bummed about it but its not worth it to me. I love aliens, but I don't love em that much. It can probably be tracked to this or that but you can't tell me that when you are run-out ,above an alien, it won't cross your mind that serveral of these piceces have failed or have at least have people claiming that they have failed. I decided that I don't want anything crossing my mind other than the move infront of me. The irony is that a LOT more carabiners have failed in recent years than Aliens, yet most climbers don't give it a second thought to run out a route where a broken biner means decking. Nor do most climbers even consider open gate strength when buying biners. Personally, I don't trust a Zero/C3/TCU/whatever any more than Aliens -- all small cams are suspect since there is so little room for error. |
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 22, 2006, 8:14 PM
Post #43 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
I'd like to thank the guys who brought this to everybodys attention. However, the open forum format and easy posting availability allows any CCH competitor or ex-employeee with an axe to grind the opprotunity to lie and make up just about anything they want.
Just saying the name of the climb, date, and identifying a few salient points gives your Paul Revere warning some truth and bite. Otherwise, it could just be some nameless schmo lying his ass off for any reason.
The stakes are real high, and although we don't want to believe anyone would yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, or "Wolf" when there is none, it unfortunatly happens....all the time....this being the internet and all.
I'm sure everyone here would say they find both outcomes equally distrubing, (Wolf or, in fact a real Alien failure) but would prefer that the truth come out soon, possibly saving a life or 2.
Can we, as a group, try to press some regular company into service to pull test aliens we already own? They make a buck and we get a service.
Regards to all, but especially to Paul Revere there.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 22, 2006, 8:18 PM
Post #44 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Whatever happened to the credo of backing up small gear..?
2 weeks ago, 3 of us were climbing at Sam's Throne for the weekend... On my last lead on Sunday (before heading home), I was leading a route that ate small gear, and nothing but small gear. All of a sudden I hear one of my partners start to laugh and point out that I had already placed placed 9 cams in the first 40' of a 50' route... I corrected him by telling him that there were 2 more micros that he couldn't see, and that I fully intended to place at least 2 more to top out.
The gear I plugged was 85% Aliens, 2 grey & 1 green Zero, and my .25 & .50 RE Durangos... I think there was even a BallNut or 2 in there somewhere.
The route was heavily sewn up because just the day before, I backed off a lead early on, and sketched on another one later in the day. Even though my confidence levels were way down and I was feeling dehydrated and pannicky, I know to always backup the small gear! :idea:
FWIW: In regards to this accident being a 20-footer onto a ledge, that shit should have been seriously backed up to prevent such a catastrophy... Any gear being placed in that spot should be backed up, just to prevent the possibility of such a fall taking place. I know firsthand, because I took a 20-footer on a #4 Nut on December 26th (Nut was backed up and redirected from a very small tree), and it too involved a nasty ledge which I bounced off of! :(
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2006, 8:23 PM
Post #45 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I was totally bummed about it but its not worth it to me. I love aliens, but I don't love em that much. It can probably be tracked to this or that but you can't tell me that when you are run-out ,above an alien, it won't cross your mind that serveral of these piceces have failed or have at least have people claiming that they have failed. I decided that I don't want anything crossing my mind other than the move infront of me. The irony is that a LOT more carabiners have failed in recent years than Aliens, yet most climbers don't give it a second thought to run out a route where a broken biner means decking. Nor do most climbers even consider open gate strength when buying biners. Personally, I don't trust a Zero/C3/TCU/whatever any more than Aliens -- all small cams are suspect since there is so little room for error. If you're correct about there being a greater number of carabiners breaking then I'd agree with this. But open strength ratings are still lower strengths in a situation that is not intended to happen. The carabiner is still operating as advertised. A cam coming apart under normal usage is not. There is a HUGE difference from a small cam pulling out of a suspect placement and the head pulling off of a cam that otherwise would have held. And I really don't consider anything larger than the green Alien to be a "small" cam.
In other words, Roy, as usual, you are wrong about just about everything you post.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2006, 8:27 PM
Post #46 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Whatever happened to the credo of backing up small gear..?
Whatever happened to the credo of not producing gear that falls apart under body weight. An orange Alien isn't small gear anyway. It's a medium sized cam that you should be able to trust implicitly.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ckirkwood9
Aug 22, 2006, 8:34 PM
Post #47 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 262
|
"trust implicitly" is going to start i flame war... i can see it.
prepare yourselves ladies and gentlemen.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 22, 2006, 8:36 PM
Post #48 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: FWIW: In regards to this accident being a 20-footer onto a ledge, that s--- should have been seriously backed up to prevent such a catastrophy... Any gear being placed in that spot should be backed up, just to prevent the possibility of such a fall taking place. I know firsthand, because I took a 20-footer on a #4 Nut on December 26th ( Nut was backed up and redirected from a very small tree), and it too involved a nasty ledge which I bounced off of! :(
Trophy and good points Tgreene, but somethimes you only get that 1 piece between you and the deck. Sometimes it happens.
Were you working with CCH earlier? How did that resolve for you? Have you any factory communication on this one?
Regards:
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2006, 8:43 PM
Post #49 of 194
(33545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: "trust implicitly" is going to start i flame war... i can see it. prepare yourselves ladies and gentlemen.
OK, let me rephrase that. You should be able to implicitly trust a well-placed medium cam in good rock.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 22, 2006, 9:01 PM
Post #51 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I agree with tgreene, I pretty much always go with two pieces between me and doom.
I've been thinking about how we climbers could jury rig a test device. I'm thinking that a lever coul;d be used to do a very basic pull test. Of course there would be no way that you could deliver consistent and measurable results but heck anything is better than nothing.
Here's what I have been thinking. Take a couple of nuts and sling the end loops over the axle close to the bulb. The nuts need to be the same size. Now place the nuts in a vice. Now insert a pry bar or some other very strong steel lever through the loop of the Alien. Pack the end of the lever up off the bench and then force the other end up to apply force against the Alien. I reckon that this would apply far more force to the Alien than mere body weight. Depending on how close you got the packing blocks to the Alien would determine the ease with which you can apply force.
If anyone has a better idea for a quick and dirty pull test then have at it.
|
|
|
|
|
afreeclimber
Aug 22, 2006, 9:09 PM
Post #52 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2006
Posts: 42
|
This Alien debacle made me pull out the five I own for yet another inspection.
They all have production dates of 1102.
I noticed my Blue Alien wasn't returning to the open position after pulling the trigger. I cleaned it, lubed it. No change. Repeated the process. No change.
Close inspection showed that the spring on one side had disconnected from the cam lobe (the Blue Aliens have a different spring setup than the larger sizes). That's when I also noticed that the axle seemed a little too long and allowed too much side to side play, which allowed the end of the spring to disconnect.
After comparison, I found that the axle on my Blue Alien is longer than the axles on my Green, Yellow, and Red Aliens.
If you have a Blue Alien, does it have the same problem?
Doesn't this make the unit unreliable, since it can lose spring tension without warning?
Don't think I'm jumping on the hate wagon. I love the Alien design concept and I'm sorry to hear bad news about them. Safety comes first though.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=77503
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2006, 9:17 PM
Post #53 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I agree with tgreene, I pretty much always go with two pieces between me and doom.
That's all well and good if you can stand there and place a second piece. What if you can't; do you just avoid climbs like that? I've trusted my life to a single blue Alien. Such situations aren't uncommon.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Aug 22, 2006, 9:19 PM
Post #54 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: I posted a photo, and it shows up under Preview, but doesn't make it to the forum for some reason.
That alien looks defective to me.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 22, 2006, 9:33 PM
Post #55 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: Trophy and good points Tgreene, but somethimes you only get that 1 piece between you and the deck. Sometimes it happens.
In reply to: Were you working with CCH earlier? How did that resolve for you? Have you any factory communication on this one?
I have not contacted Dave in regards to this issue, nor is it my place to do so, UNTIL more information is forthcoming.
[*:4ed4d70e2a] What was the condition of this particular cam?
[*:4ed4d70e2a] Had it ever held any prior falls, and if so, how big and how many?
[*:4ed4d70e2a] Produce the allegedly failed cam.
[*:4ed4d70e2a] Could this have been backed up, and if so, whay wasn't it?
[*:4ed4d70e2a] Was CCH contacted before "Fire" was screamed throughout the online comunity?
At this point in time, there are far more questions than answers, and as I've always maintained, it's simply not fair to any manufacturer when threads of this nature are allowed to spiral out of control before the facts are properly presented.
As has already been pointed out, there are a lot of people out there that would love to see nothing more than CCH go belly up, yet the recent recalls and gear failures of Metolius, Trango, BD, etc never received nearly as much riducule... In fact, the companies were out and out praised for their handling of the situations. Yes, CCH did handle things wrong before, but every other company that has since suffered similar issues, has learned to be "Johnny on the spot" when it comes to answers and solutions. Case in point was the total failure of not 1, but 2 Metolius Ultralights recently, with the official company statement that everyone seemed to accept being that both were due to extreme fall factors beyond what the cams were rated for... That was fine for 1 of them, but the 2nd cam that failed was clearly stated to be body weight!!! Right or wrong, the immediate response from Metolius seemed to quiet the lynch mob and everyone is happily climbing on their shiny new Ultralights.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 22, 2006, 9:49 PM
Post #56 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: In reply to: I agree with tgreene, I pretty much always go with two pieces between me and doom. That's all well and good if you can stand there and place a second piece. What if you can't; do you just avoid climbs like that? I've trusted my life to a single blue Alien. Such situations aren't uncommon. Jay
Absolutely true Jay and I too have done so. Smatter fact a couple or three weekends ago I put up a new 250 metre totally trad route on Mt. Warning, Oz grade 19. At the crux all I could get was a red Alien with only three lobes in contact with the rock. That was above a slab which I would definitely have splattered against.
What do I do, do I not try to force the onsight FFA or do I go home with my tail between my legs. I tell you what I do, I climb very carefully taking my time to work out the moves by prospecting the holds and testing the boundaries within my skill levels and don't under any circumstances put myself in a position where I might fall off, no way will that cam hold, it's just there to hold the rope up.
A couple of strength moves on bomber rock gets me to a fantastic number two Camalot placement and once that was clipped then Phil was a very happy boy. It never ceases to amaze me how big the holds become after sphincter puckering factor has passed.
Quite a spicy crux. It's gunna stay that way too.
I'll say again though that whenever possible I will try to get two pieces between me and doom. As Jay points out that is not always possible and that is the time when you simply do not fall off. If you you better hope that your gear is good. Gear being the placement and as we have seen of recent times the manufacturing of said piece of gear had better be good too.
|
|
|
|
|
phojar
Aug 22, 2006, 9:51 PM
Post #57 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 64
|
I think tgreene is right, people need to stop speculating about an accident they know very little about. Based on some posts here and others on the CCH thread before the recall it does seem that a few if not many people have problems with CCH as a company. If you do fine, don't use their gear and stop complaining. After the recall I returned my dimpled aliens but I still had 100% confidence in the others, now I still have confidence in my aliens but it is more like 98% so I'm going to wait this out and see what happens before I jump to conclusions. If I recall right some retailers pull tested their whole alien stocks after the first incident (correct me if I'm wrong) but it seems strange that if that was the case that no non-dimpled aliens would have failed, especially if the suspect cam in this case failed under body weight only.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2006, 10:11 PM
Post #58 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I agree with tgreene, I pretty much always go with two pieces between me and doom. That's all well and good if you can stand there and place a second piece. What if you can't; do you just avoid climbs like that? I've trusted my life to a single blue Alien. Such situations aren't uncommon. Jay Absolutely true Jay and I too have done so. Smatter fact a couple or three weekends ago I put up a new 250 metre totally trad route on Mt. Warning, Oz grade 19. At the crux all I could get was a red Alien with only three lobes in contact with the rock. That was above a slab which I would definitely have splattered against. [..] A couple of strength moves on bomber rock gets me to a fantastic number two Camalot placement and once that was clipped then Phil was a very happy boy. [..] I'll say again though that whenever possible I will try to get two pieces between me and doom.
So you relaxed when you got a #2 Camalot in. Why? You still don't have two pieces between you and doom, because the red Alien with only 3 lobes in contact with the rock is placebo pro only. You relaxed because you consider a single #2 Camalot to be bomber. Likewise, a single orange Alien should be bomber, which is my point. You likely didn't back up the #2 Camalot because for the same reason that the accident victim didn't back up an orange Alien: it would be (should be, anyway) overkill.
Note I'm assuming that the placement and the rock are good quality (not necessarily the case in P Forks basalt).
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 22, 2006, 10:50 PM
Post #59 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Yep, number 2 Camalot was indeed bomber in very high quality rock. Excellent holds and another piece very soon after the Camalot placement definitely ensured that no tragedy would ensue.
Once again Jay your perspicacity is impeccable. In fact your insightfulness shows up some headspace issues that I constantly battle with.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 22, 2006, 11:05 PM
Post #60 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
And yet again, I'll bring up the issue involving 2 total failures of Ultralights... Yes, one was indeed the fall forces being out of the acceptible ranges, but the other one I clearly call bullshit on, as did others!
Black Diamond just had a huge harness recall that covered a range of several models, yet hardly a peep was ever mentioned.
Trango recalled a MaxCam, yet narry a word.
Metolius recalled a series of biners last year, yet I've never heard anything in regards to "multiple incidents" in regards to those guys.
Petzl has certainly been there done that, too.
Omega... The link cams had a number of issues that FORTUNATELY were handled before they left the factory -- Kudos!
MadRock -- Does recalling Joe count..? :wink:
---------------------
If you're just another hater wanting to jump on the bandwagon, then you better wait, because this is quickly becoming a circus train! :idea:
-Tim
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 22, 2006, 11:06 PM
Post #61 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
In reply to: Note I'm assuming that the placement and the rock are good quality (not necessarily the case in P Forks basalt).
The rock at the forks is pretty damn good...except down low on some climbs.
I dont understand why so many people are bitching about people slamming CCH....as far as I can tell no one has.
While the information that I posted about the cam was not first hand...it was directly from the guy who cleaned the gear from the route. I dont really see there being much speculation in saying that the cam failed..unless this guy was blind or lying. We ran into him in the parking lot on Sunday morning and he told us about the accident and showed us where the cam had failed....quite a way to start a day of climbing. We defianlty placed a bit more gear than normal on everything we did that day...and the aliens stayed in our packs at the top of the cliff.
|
|
|
|
|
hawthorne5630
Aug 22, 2006, 11:07 PM
Post #62 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 15
|
First off, I think the READERS of this forum should take more responsibility in weighing what they read and not try and put the responsibility on the poster. I liken forum posts to gossip, until they are substantiated, they should be treated as such. If this was a highly regarded journalistic source, it'd be different.
I was at the forks the day after the accident. I didn't know the accident had happened, but almost went to climb The Prow. It wasn't until the following day that I heard about what happened. My wife and I walked over to the prow area and then changed our minds and climbed at pillow wall instead.
I have no first hand knowledge, but here is what I heard. The guy had placed three pieces above the ledge and went to hang on the third when he fell. It wasn't until someone went back to clean the route that they found the stem had pulled out of the head. The guy that fell is in the ICU but is doing better.
The Prow is a splitter crack in bommer basalt that goes from fingers to tight hands to hands. I have put more trust in placements at the forks in general than anywhere else because the rock is very good and the cracks are deep. The prow is no different.
Phil: Your idea of a pull test (I'm assuming you are talking about a proof test and not testing to failure) brings up the dilemma of proof testing. You generally want to proof test to a load that will never be seen in use to prove that it will not fail under normal conditions. BUT, does the proof test itself weaken the part that's being tested so the next time it's used it is weaker than before? It has been shown to do so in some cases. Food for thought.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Aug 22, 2006, 11:18 PM
Post #63 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
and don't forget the massive WC biner recall.
My main problem with NOT using Aliens is that there is nothing even close to the same performance quality except maybe the Metolius Tri-cams (which I also climb with) . Zeros are complete garbage, they are not durable and they seem to get stuck constantly. I just sold my set of Zeros for $20 each (big loss).
I am twice lucky to have fallen at least once on all of my Aliens, lucky to be alive and lucky to have tested safe Aliens.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 22, 2006, 11:31 PM
Post #64 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: I dont understand why so many people are b---- about people slamming CCH....as far as I can tell no one has.
It's clearly impossible to state FACTS, when none of us are party to them at this time.
Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that that it didn't happen, but I am asking people to simply wait for the FACTS before making decisions that may/will forever change the climbing industry.
Too much speculation without any of the requisite facts surrounding this situation, will only do two things:
[*:f063cc6398]Force others to make rash buying decisions that will ultimately result in economic losses for CCH.
[*:f063cc6398]Force CCH into bankruptcy. Sorry kids, but despite your feelings about the way Dave runs things, we can't possibly afford to lose another manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
|
abcdefghijk
Aug 22, 2006, 11:40 PM
Post #66 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2006
Posts: 1
|
I'm not a member of this site so my first thread was posted on my wife's account.
I’m the person that originally posted this thread and I want to clear up a few concerns and issues. Also I apologize for any repeat information (I haven’t read past the first page of this thread and I intend not to).
1) I was belaying when this individual fell and I assisted with every step of the rescue
2) The socket of the cam did separate from the stem which suggests a brazing issue. I held this cam in my hands and inspected as did many other climbers at the scene
3) I have spoken directly with the climber who was involved and he is doing fine and should recover fully.
4) I took several pictures of the cam and I will post them when I get permission from the individual who owned the cam.
5) The accident took place at Paradise Fork on the Prow on August 19, 2006
6) The cam appeared to be brand new
|
|
|
|
|
wb3
Aug 22, 2006, 11:40 PM
Post #67 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2006
Posts: 11
|
OK, caveats first:
* I'm relatively new here
* I'm a pretty inexperienced climber/trad leader
* It's been a very long time since I was an engineer but I realize this suggestion is not really quantifiable or controlled
BUT
I have several Aliens that I bought about a year ago. I've checked to ensure there are no dimples on them but wld also like to test them. I wonder if it makes sense to go take controlled falls on them. I was envisioning rigging some kind of toprope anchor as a backup and then taking leader falls onto the cams. So many variables that I wouldn't really try and draw any measurable conclusions from this, but maybe it'll give me some confidence that the individual units I own are unlikely to fail under normal circumstances. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 22, 2006, 11:52 PM
Post #68 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
In reply to: Sorry kids...
OK dad. And by the way, if you think a green Alien and a #1 Ball Nut constitutes "thin :shock:" gear, you need to get out of Arkansas.
I think climbing with Aliens is akin to playing Russian Roulette.
I also completely agree with the statement that these forums should be treated as gossip and critically as such. I vividly remember my 7th grade English teacher telling my class that we need to learn to read and think critically, otherwise the whole world can take advantage of us.
Thats why, IMO, moderation, like that of Mr. Box, and demands to "not cry wolf", like that of Mr. Greene, are just as obnoxious and mind-numbing as the ignorant posts they attempt to address.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Aug 23, 2006, 12:06 AM
Post #69 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
In reply to: I wonder if it makes sense to go take controlled falls on them. I was envisioning rigging some kind of toprope anchor as a backup and then taking leader falls onto the cams.
So, you're gonna go all Mythbusters on this shiz? Sounds good, but why not just skip the toprope backup and use some bodyweight sized object rather than risking your own hide?
I must say, as somebody just building a rack, I actually am a little leery investing in some CCH product now. C3s are too new for shit to have hit the fan, and now I hear the ultralights are suspect. I guess it's the "plug it and then don't fall" solution for this one.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 12:34 AM
Post #70 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: I must say, as somebody just building a rack, I actually am a little leery investing in some CCH product now. C3s are too new for shit to have hit the fan, and now I hear the ultralights are suspect. I guess it's the "plug it and then don't fall" solution for this one.
To the poster that questions why comments in regards to backing up the pro, that statement was made because it was stated that the climber took a 20-footer onto a ledge... Nothing is ever 100%, so why not take the added precaution to cover your ass to help prevent this type of injury..? What if the placement was bad, or the rock blew (I had a shoebox sized hold break off in my hands last week, and it missed my belayer by a mere 6 inches!), or the cam simply walked..?
Unfortunately, bad shit happens to great people (Karafa & Bachar) all the time when least expected, so the best that we can ever do is to try to cover our own asses as best as humanly possible.
-Tim
|
|
|
|
|
ironmike52
Aug 23, 2006, 12:58 AM
Post #71 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2006
Posts: 1
|
Hello, my name is Mike Thurston and I have been climbing for 17years. I also was the original owner of Hoosier Heights Climbing Gym in Bloomington, IN. I am not a shit hot climber just an old dirt bag climber who loves the thrill of sending a trad 5.6. I just wanted to say that I have known the OP from his first day of climbing and he is trust worthy beyond reproach. Whatever he indicated the situation was - then that is what went down. I know he hesitated to post this info. preferring to let the climber who fell make the decision on how to proceed. I think he gave into the idea that others needed to know that a piece of gear totally failed. In the future if this happened to me I think it would be best to immediately notify the manufacture, inform them of the situation, and let them act appropriately. If they do not immediately notify the climbing public of a possible problem then I would call them on it publicly. The OP did a great job in possibly saving this young mans life along with the help of others.
I do not understand the immediate distrust if every nuance is not divulged.
The OP along with most of the climbers I know love Aliens but it is what it is. The cam failed. If there was an unsafe situation at the gym I would act ASAP - CCH should do the same. As others have already posted - place early, place often, place before the crux. Don't hang it on one piece if you can help it. Wear a helmet. Sorry don't mean to rant - ONE MORE TIME THE O.P. IS BEYOND REPROACH AND THAT POINT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.
Thanks
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
russwalling
Aug 23, 2006, 1:32 AM
Post #72 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2002
Posts: 239
|
I posted this on SuperTopo also:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=241979&f=0&b=0
I'm not a member of this site so my first thread was posted on my wife's account.
I’m the person that originally posted this thread and I want to clear up a few concerns and issues. Also I apologize for any repeat information (I haven’t read past the first page of this thread and I intend not to).
1) I was belaying when this individual fell and I assisted with every step of the rescue
2) The socket of the cam did separate from the stem which suggests a brazing issue. I held this cam in my hands and inspected as did many other climbers at the scene
3) I have spoken directly with the climber who was involved and he is doing fine and should recover fully.
4) I took several pictures of the cam and I will post them when I get permission from the individual who owned the cam.
5) The accident took place at Paradise Fork on the Prow on August 19, 2006
6) The cam appeared to be brand new
Sounds like the cable pulled out of the business end.
Not to try and dip my bread into the gravy while it is hot..... but, in what may look like an blatant attempt at sopping up some blood money..... would you guys (Alien users) be interested in a home test kit to check your own Aliens right there at the pad, no shipping back and forth, and no wait? I tested my one and only Alien (booty!) today and came up with an easy way to test the thing, without ruining it, to 1000lbs or more. This is an easy and fun test that can be done while drinking with friends at your own house. Interested? Toss me some ideas so this sounds less and less like a hyena munching at a carcass while the pride is away.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Aug 23, 2006, 1:37 AM
Post #73 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: I do not understand the immediate distrust if every nuance is not divulged.
We are all faceless non-entities here, and we treat each other as such.
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 23, 2006, 1:42 AM
Post #74 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
This might not be the most appropriate place to post this and if someone feels the need to start another thread and move this there go for it...
All I want to do here is try and clarify what a proof load is and what the rated strengths might mean in a real world application. Warning...there may be some Nerd Speak in here...dont read it if you are uncomfortable with that.
First off, proof loads. the following was a pretty clear definition.
In reply to: Proof load (Engin.), the greatest load than can be applied to a piece, as a beam, column, etc., without straining the piece beyond the elastic limit.
Essentially what that means is that the proof load tests the piece up until the point where, if more load was applied, the piece would begin to be deformed. Metal stretches to a certain point and will spring back to its original shape without any physical change up to a certain load, this strength is called the yield strength..it is not the point where the piece fails, but where it begins to be deformed to a point where it will not spring back..ie bending a paperclip. When you use to hold several pages together it will spring back to its original shape....but if you put it on a stack of 50pages it will be permanantly deformed.
What that means for cams is the load that you test them to is the load that they can be expected to function without permanant deformation. If you look at the load rating of the CCH cams you will notice that it coresponds to the diameter of the cable that they have. Obviously a larger cable willbe stronger.....a proper braze will be much stronger than the cable itself.
My understanding of the failure mode that occurs with the brazes is that it is a result of fractures in the braze due to uneven cooling of the piece. As there are several different metals involved which all cool and shrink at different rates this cooling needs to be carefully controlled. If a brazed joint is defective it would fail the proof load test. I do not believe that fatigue plays any part in the failure so the strength of the braze shouldnt gradually lessen until it fails..it would fail at a similar load regardless of any prior loading. This is a good thing for us as it means that if your cam can be proof loaded you shoulld be good to go.
From reading CCHs website it sounds like thats exactly what they are starting to do. They state that they are now testing every cam to its rated load and marking them as being tested. They are also implimenting and ISO9000 quality assurance program.
In reply to: 7) What is CCH doing to prevent this type of defect from happening again? CCH is currently working on implementing an ISO 9000 quality management system. To prevent this specific issue we are pull testing every brazed cable to the specified strength rating. You can verify that the new CCH Alien cams manufactured after January 2006 have completed cable pull testing by locating an "L", "U" or "N" punch on the head of the cam. We have also implemented new jig testing to verify that Alien cams meet specified tolerances. For those interested in the technical details of this recall, we will be publishing our analysis over the next few weeks on our website http://aliencamsbycch.com/recall.
What that means is they are going through the trouble, and believe me its a pain in the ass, of setting up procedures etc to allow them to document the manufacturing of their cams. This is good because it means that they are commited to controlling their processes and that if there is ever any other problems they will be able to much more effectivly deal with them as things will be much more tracable and well documented. Submitting for an ISO9000 audit is not an easy process and requires alot of work, particulalry for a small company such as CCH. I am impressed that they are going that far in ensureing that their future products are of the quality that we expect. I would have no problem climbing on newer cam that has been through their testing and plan on asking them to test the cams that I have currently to the same standards.
If anyone has any questions reagarding any of the gibberish that I just typed feel free to ask me...I will try to answer as best I can or direct you to some source of information that might make things a bit clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
bones
Aug 23, 2006, 4:09 AM
Post #75 of 194
(35648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 253
|
[quote="afreeclimber"]I noticed my Blue Alien wasn't returning to the open position after pulling the trigger. I cleaned it, lubed it. No change. Repeated the process. No change.
Close inspection showed that the spring on one side had disconnected from the cam lobe (the Blue Aliens have a different spring setup than the larger sizes). That's when I also noticed that the axle seemed a little too long and allowed too much side to side play, which allowed the end of the spring to disconnect.
After comparison, I found that the axle on my Blue Alien is longer than the axles on my Green, Yellow, and Red Aliens.
If you have a Blue Alien, does it have the same problem?
Doesn't this make the unit unreliable, since it can lose spring tension without warning?
In reply to: I've had the same problems with my blue aliens. It's quite annoying to reach for a cam in a desperate situation only to find that it has no spring tension!
|
|
|
|
|
hawthorne5630
Aug 23, 2006, 4:42 AM
Post #76 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 15
|
Regarding proof testing, it is generally not an accepted method of quality control anymore because of fatigue.
A proof test that is carried out at just below the yield point can be very bad especially if the fatigue properties of the system are not understood. I have seen aluminum casting alloys fail in less than 10 cycles when tested just below yield. All of the structural materials in a cam suffer from fatigue, even the braze.
Proof testing a cam becomes even more problematic because it is not a simple test coupon, it is a complex device. There are tensile stresses in the cable, shear stresses in the braze, bending of the axle, compression of the cam lobes, etc. In fact it would be very difficult to determine a yield point for a cam period.
A much better method is to produce a batch of cams with certified materials and mechanically test a sample to failure. If the sample passes the test, then the remaining cams would be subject to non-destructive testing to determine that certain critical areas meet the inspection criteria, such as voids in the braze joint, porosity in the cam lobes, etc. In fact, a defective braze joint would be easy to detect using radiography or ultrasound.
I don’t know if anybody does this. After all, climbing gear is a consumer market (that’s why a consumer grade hammer costs $10, the same hammer in aerospace grade costs $100 and a medical grade hammer costs $1000). If any gear manufacturers do, I would be very happy to hear about it. If not, it would be nice to see gear manufacturers implement such a procedure.
Anyway, I’m glad it wasn’t worse for the guy that fell. I hope he makes a full and quick recovery.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Aug 23, 2006, 4:43 AM
Post #77 of 194
(34782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
[quote:3ed47751d9="russwalling"]would you guys (Alien users) be interested in a home test kit to check your own Aliens right there at the pad, no shipping back and forth, and no wait?[/quote:3ed47751d9]
I'd be interested, though I'd willing to send them out too.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Aug 23, 2006, 4:56 AM
Post #78 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
I cant wait to hear the outcome of this because I'm an avid (obsessed?) fan of aliens and climb on them a lot.
Ya Russ, I'm interested, but cost is of course an issue.
as far as the following tangent...
In reply to: In reply to: Sorry kids... OK dad. And by the way, if you think a green Alien and a #1 Ball Nut constitutes "thin :shock:" gear, you need to get out of Arkansas.
I agree on the green alien, but a #1 ballnut??? That's thin gear no matter where you're from.
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Aug 23, 2006, 4:57 AM
Post #79 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Hey Russ:
(sorry fo the drift)
I'd be interested in being able to test some stuff to 1000 pounds.
It would be cool for booty gear finds, like cams I've yarded out of cracks but don't really trust enough to use and my "el cap base" biner finds. All that euro weirdness would look great on my rack. Not that I encourage such behavior, of course.
My 30 aliens, all manufactured in the last 2 years thanks to my rack being stolen, could stand for the test, too.
Glad to hear this climber is recovering.
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
russwalling
Aug 23, 2006, 5:10 AM
Post #80 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2002
Posts: 239
|
Kate: when you come down here we can test out all your stuff. It is fun and easy... and eye-opening.
From the previous page:
Cost *is* a big issue. Shipping is the killer. Unless you have a bunch of cams, spending 7 to 10 bucks each way plus insurance is just too much money. The "home test kit" would be more like a couple bucks per cam plus some shipping.... probably like $4.00 via Priority mail. This seems cheap enough that even the guy with only a handful of Aliens can get some sleep at night.
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Aug 23, 2006, 5:26 AM
Post #81 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
That would be cool, Russ.
Of course, I shipped you a batch today for the regular fee, its worth it to me to know now and know for sure. With 30 cams the shipping cost is worth it and peak season is right around the corner.
People could combine with partners, lump 15 cams (or whatever) in a box and save money on shipping.
FWIW, FISH's batch-testing of rivit hangers restored my faith after the *epic spiraling wonderment and screamer deployment exercise* last spring, I feel pretty sure he do the same with aliens.
Disclaimer: I am impressed with the changes CCH is making, and wish them the best. Its just that all my aliens were made during some 'hard times' for them so I'm going to make for sure-sure, regardless of the story behind this orange cam.
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 12:29 PM
Post #82 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
In reply to: Too much speculation without any of the requisite facts surrounding this situation...
It sounds like the Aliens are getting some seriously bad hype. If you drop a biner, do you pick it up and say...oh..well, I'm sure it'll still hold....
Or do you clip it on your lawnmower and just have a new key chain biner? (or fixed draw for some POS jug haul).
I'd like to apply this common trend to that of the Aliens...Someone got jacked, and it seems like it wasn't a bad placement. The dude did what most of us has done...clipped a piece, said F...take, weighted it and BOOOM! The cam broke and he fell and got seriously injured.
Honestly, I do some stupid things some time (thankfully none of them got pregnant). But this guy who was injured didn't do anything wrong, except trust a cam that was suppose to do its job. And that cam didn't do its job...honestly guys, he could have died. I don't care if your grandpa Irvin is putting your through college with his patent on the "Aliens".
You can't stick up for a piece of gear who failed to do its job, when this job is so important. Heck, if you're diving and your regulator (or whatever its called) goes due to faulty manufactoring and your drown, was regulator company being irresponsible?
I'd seriously think twice before considering buying these pieces, especially with the new BD and Metolius out there. Its your life man. Think of all the women (or men)/animals/misc objects out there that need your loving.
Does this mean that there's going to be a bunch of close-outs and cheap aliens on ebay? Maybe I'll get a quadruple set
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 2:09 PM
Post #84 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I searched through and did not find any posts in regard to someone being seriouly injured or killed because of a Black Diamond or Metolius cam blowing apart, can you direct me to this please?
Thanks.
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Aug 23, 2006, 2:13 PM
Post #85 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: It sounds like the Aliens are getting some seriously bad hype. If you drop a biner, do you pick it up and say...oh..well, I'm sure it'll still hold.... Or do you clip it on your lawnmower and just have a new key chain biner? (or fixed draw for some POS jug haul).
I use it, same goes for the alien it was attached to.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 2:20 PM
Post #86 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
In reply to: But hey, that new Russian gear looks promising though, and there have been no reported failures of any of them as of yet...
If their gear is anything like their SKSs and AK-47s, we'll all be in great shape! :D
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 2:48 PM
Post #87 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Trophy for you! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 2:52 PM
Post #88 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
:lol: laf thanks man
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
dfoote07
Aug 23, 2006, 3:04 PM
Post #89 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2006
Posts: 50
|
Hey
I have been thinking about getting a set of aliens, but I was waiting for the bad hype to go down about all the recalls. Has anyone had any problems with the new aliens? Just wondering before I sink some money into a set. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 23, 2006, 4:13 PM
Post #90 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
CCH Alien
Weight 2.4 oz
Weight (grams) 68g
Strength 9.34kN
2100 lbf
Range 10-77 mm
0.39-0.67"
Pull testing sold separately
tgreene,
Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years.
thanks!
-B
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 23, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #91 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
In response to hawthornes post...you state that proof loading of cams might be weakening them. As I understand it the tests are based on the strengths of the wire that is used, which is the weak link. The way I read the info on CCHs website was that the stem assemblies were tested after brazing...I would assume before they have axles and lobes attached to them. The AL head should be pretty burly, and the braze if done correctly will be the strongest part of the whole piece. As far as I am aware, fatigue is not a huge issue with SS cables, particulalry at such a low number of cycles.
Maybe we should continue this discussion someplace else...it is cerainly and interesting one.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 23, 2006, 4:26 PM
Post #92 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures.
you mean the metolious cam which failed because the climber took a fall which exceeded the force rating for that cam?
oooohh yes, you got him there. CHECK MATE!
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Aug 23, 2006, 4:29 PM
Post #93 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
If you're going to do a pull test by car, wouldn't a single strand of 3mm accessory cord with figure 8's at both ends work? It's not as precise as a sewn load limiter, but the 3mm cord should break at the knot at less than 2KN, which should be good enough for a pull test without damaging the alien. Maybe 2mm cord, but I don't know if that would allow any more load than a good bounce test.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 4:50 PM
Post #94 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures. you mean the metolious cam which failed because the climber took a fall which exceeded the force rating for that cam? oooohh yes, you got him there. CHECK MATE! |
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #95 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: tgreene, Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years. thanks!
http://www.rockclimbing.com/topic/118108
I especially liked the comment about having to tape the springs in place, so they will function properly... :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 23, 2006, 5:13 PM
Post #96 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures.
I saw your post about them and felt that, at least in the Metolius case, your post was misleading and factually incorrect.
First of all, the 00 TCU you spoke of did not blow out under body weight. Second, to contrast Metolius' and CCH's responses to their respective gear failing, let's play a game. I'll name a post-accident manufacturer response and you tell me which company did it.
1. Pull 100% of finished product from the warehouse and test every single unit to 90% rated strength.
2. Test 50 units to total failure.
3. Share the results of testing with the public within 72 hours of the accident.
4. Call the accident a hoax.
CCH's recent and apparently unchanged QC history is plane as day. Obviously, they didn't even have a plan in place to deal with such an emergency, despite the fact that their cams were already under fire for the -- still unaddressed -- misdrilled axle holes. We certainly can afford to lose such a company. And maybe it's about time we did. Anybody who would purchase an Alien right now is either a complete moron or he's been living in a closet on Mars for the last year or he has a Russ-Walling Home Alien Tester.
Speaking of which, Russ, I too would be very interested in such a dee-vice... enough to pay $$ for it... and as long as I could use it on all makes and models, not just Aliens. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 23, 2006, 5:24 PM
Post #97 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: tgreene, Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years. thanks! I especially liked the comment about having to tape the springs in place, so they will function properly... :shock:
I don't know what the deal with the Metolius cam was -- it certainly isn't well documented in the thread. But anyway...
...I have been using cams for 20 years. During that time -- right up until the Aliens fiasco -- it was axiomatic that camming units DID NOT FAIL. In fact, the rated strengths on cams were always considered a joke because it was known that the placement would fail at a much lower load than the unit itself could bear.
In this thread some pos(t)ers have insinuated that the accident victim was culpable because he did not back up the protection. This is utterly ridiculous. Except for small wires, the purpose of backing up placements has never been to protect against the piece breaking; it has always been to protect against the piece pulling, either by tracking out or by breaking the rock in which it is placed. Tracking can occur in soft rock. Breakage of the rock is mainly an issue with small gear, which focuses large forces on a small area of rock; but it also can occur (needless to say) in any bad rock. Thus, a medium or large cam that is well placed in good, hard rock is not the type of placement that one would be expected to back up.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Aug 23, 2006, 5:25 PM
Post #98 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
I am the cam pull tester. Another couple of burgers and donuts and I should be able to bounce test any cam, constructed properly or not, into complete pulverization. Send your Aliens to me -- if they hold my fat ass for a vigorous rendition of the bounce-test boogy then you're golden.
On a serious note, this sucks. I was hoping the CCH had their QC problems behind them, but now it looks like I may need to start questioning the integrity of those that are even of the older variety on my rack. I have already put nearly all of mine through the "boogy" test, so mine may be pre-debacle Aliens.
Thanks for keeping us informed about the failures.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 23, 2006, 5:33 PM
Post #99 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
From tgreene's report of a BD CAM FAILURE:
In reply to: The wire that attaches the lobe to the trigger/springs had popped out of place and caused the lobe to get stuck in position.
In reply to: I was able to pop it back in.
I repeat:
tgreene,
Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years.
thanks!
-B
I have had a full set of C3's for over a year now and have had no problems.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Aug 23, 2006, 5:36 PM
Post #100 of 194
(34783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: tgreene, Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years. thanks! I especially liked the comment about having to tape the springs in place, so they will function properly... :shock:
You are being purposefully misleading here. This thread discusses a cam failure that entails the functional components separating. To equate the spring mechanism of a cam being nonfunctional to a cam failing in a fall is unbelievable to me.
You Mr. Greene are an asshole.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
tallnik
Aug 23, 2006, 5:38 PM
Post #101 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 595
|
Since Alien cams do rock the house, let's hope they respond appropriately to this issue, and do the right thing. Then let's hope they've got their production quality control issues sorted.
tgreene is absolutely right in pointing out that all companies have to recall goods. Rock empire also had to recall a harness this year.
Metolius responded so admirably to the ultra-light issues, but they also had the luxury of hindsight in having seen what happened to CCH when they screwed up last time.
fingers crossed for CCH!
Nik
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 23, 2006, 6:00 PM
Post #102 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures. you mean the metolious cam which failed because the climber took a fall which exceeded the force rating for that cam? oooohh yes, you got him there. CHECK MATE! I was thinking more about the one that failed under body weight. :?
have you ever even taken a real fall on gear?
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Aug 23, 2006, 6:07 PM
Post #103 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: We certainly can afford to lose such a company. And maybe it's about time we did. Anybody who would purchase an Alien right now is either a complete moron or he's been living in a closet on Mars for the last year or he has a Russ-Walling Home Alien Tester.
There's a lot of strong competition is the small cam market. More in the medium sizes. No competitors at all for the small hybrids though.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 6:14 PM
Post #104 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: have you ever even taken a real fall on gear?
From Pg-3 of this thread:
In reply to: I took a 20-footer on a #4 Nut on December 26th ( Nut was backed up and redirected from a very small tree), and it too involved a nasty ledge which I bounced off of! :( |
|
|
|
|
ckirkwood9
Aug 23, 2006, 6:15 PM
Post #105 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: There's a lot of strong competition is the small cam market. More in the medium sizes. No competitors at all for the small hybrids though.
actually - metolius is set to release their version of hybrids. Check out the
The Summer Market review.
search for hybrid TCU
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 6:17 PM
Post #106 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
quit slinging mud and stay on topic darn it! :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Aug 23, 2006, 6:26 PM
Post #107 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: actually - metolius is set to release their version of hybrids. Check out the The Summer Market review. search for hybrid TCU
Looking forward to trying 'em out.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 6:34 PM
Post #108 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: You are being purposefully misleading here. This thread discusses a cam failure that entails the functional components separating. To equate the spring mechanism of a cam being nonfunctional to a cam failing in a fall is unbelievable to me.
The posters in the C3 thread do seem rather concerned about the springs popping out of place, especially if it were to happen on a route...
In reply to: So I was just sorting out my rack after a trip to the Gunks and noticed that one of my new C3's was kind of screwed up. The wire that attaches the lobe to the trigger/springs had popped out of place and caused the lobe to get stuck in position.
...
I was able to pop it back in. I guess the problem in my mind is that if the wires were to pop out while on a route it might be a little more tricky to pop it back in. Not something I want to have to f around with while climbing.
In reply to: I have a similar problem with a few of my BD cams. I just popped the wire back in and used a bit of tape to hold the wire in place. The tape itself does not support any weight but serves just to keep the wire in place.
Is this the same as a total failure resulting in an accident..? Obviously not, well not yet anyway, because this has obviously come to the attention of numerous climbers that are using the new C3's. Ironically though, I have yet to see anything from BD about this issue, concerning a brand new piece of equipment.
CCH has implemented comprehensive testing procedures since the recall, and it's most unfortunate that this accident has happened (with ANY piece of gear from ANY manufacturer). Unfortunately for all of us, this may have been too little too late, but at least they are finally testing everything.
Calling me names because of making associations to other failures (be it on the ground or on route), is absurd at best, and clearly shows the level of incivilility that seems to be the norm with the anti-CCH camp these days.
My rack is a mixed bag of everything, and I don't trust any of it implicitly, therefore when in doubt, I back it up... When really in doubt or when I'm having a bad day, I lower off!
-Tim
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 23, 2006, 6:37 PM
Post #109 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: In reply to: have you ever even taken a real fall on gear? From Pg-3 of this thread: In reply to: I took a 20-footer on a #4 Nut on December 26th ( Nut was backed up and redirected from a very small tree), and it too involved a nasty ledge which I bounced off of! :(
i see, interesting. sounds like you took a sizeable fall, above passive gear (and a "very small tree"), onto a ledge, because you made a novice mistake.
i stand corrected. you are obviously qualified and knowledgeable about the performance of small cams. please continue spouting off about how it's ok if small gear is unreliable, and how we should place gear every five feet instead of asking for a worthwhile product.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 6:41 PM
Post #110 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Thanks to Phillip for the heads up that we are revisiting the Alien issue again.
First I'd like to wish the injured climber a speedy recovery. Many of us had a sense that it was possible that sooner or later someone was going to get hurt on one of the bad aliens floating around out there.
Second, I do think you have to separate the old cams from the new, post recall cams. The new cams are, in theory, being produced with better safeguards, awareness, and QC process controls than Aliens have ever been manufactured with in the past. They are also being individually pull tested.
Third, with regard to the pre-recall non-dimpled cams, an underlying assumption of the recall was that the brazing subcontractor "dimple" center-punched all his cams. We don't know that for a fact as it was done on the subcontractors own initiative. It would be helpful to know on what date the subcontractor brazed his first Alien and also at what point in his contract did he start "dimpling" cams - the question that this individual needs to answer is did he braze any cams he did not "dimple".
If this latest cam that blew in AZ had a stem failure and was manufactured in 2004 then there are several outstanding problems:
a) There are non-"dimpled" cams out there with bad brazes. Were they done by the same contractor and not "dimpled", or were they done by CCH?
b) The existing recall is not wide enough in scope and clearly all 2004 cams need to be recalled and tested.
Through all of this CCH Alien episode (and it is all the same episode, but a new incident with one of the involved cams), I have advocated a reasoned and objective approach to the issue and still do. But I, like J_ung have had ongoing concerns about pace, depth, and followthrough CCH's response relative to this whole affair.
And I have been exceptionally troubled by the reintroduction of Aliens into REI, EMS, and other "Big Box" retailers. I have in particular been forced to seriously question REI's and EMS's quality and product safety review processes and judgements relative to the reintroduction of Aliens so soon after the recall and while CCH was implementing new quality procedures. Did REI or any of these retailers formally audit CCH's QC processes? It is extremely hard for me to believe they did. It has also been deeply troubling to me that CCH would even have attempted to ramp back into the big box retailers before fully completing the overhaul of their QC processes (which would have to still be in process in the case of ISO9001).
Also, as J_ung noted, there was a legitimate issue with misdrilled axle holes that were never addressed. The most severly affected of these cams have very little range which should be fairly apparent if you look at them closely - documented examples of misdrilled axle holes have been seen in orange and clear Aliens in the past. While most of these cams will hold their design weight at some specific point in their retraction / range, they will not do so on either side of that specific point.
At this point in the whole affair we as climbers each bear ultimate responsibility for our safety when we use Aliens - if after being aware of this episode and these problems you get hurt using these products because you didn't inspect them and either bounce test them yourself or send them in to CCH and have them tested, then the responsibility is yours. When you leave the ground it's your ass on the line - make sure it's covered...
=====================================
In reply to: The dude did what most of us has done...clipped a piece, said F...take, weighted it and BOOOM! The cam broke and he fell and got seriously injured. ...But this guy who was injured didn't do anything wrong, except trust a cam that was suppose to do its job.
With regard to this statement. I have been tracking this class of accident over the past several years now. The issue is applying sport tactics (hanging / resting) to trad climbing. Now this was a clear case of gear failure - BUT it also clearly illustrates the risks of hanging on trad gear. Given the description by his belayer it can be suspected that "taking" or hanging was part of their tactics and that he knew in advance of leaving the ground that he might be "taking" on the climb.
I'm not saying don't use this tactic or don't "take" - but I am saying be aware of the risks you are assuming when you apply this tactic to trad climbing. "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one where if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior. The talk in previous posts here about backing up such pieces were especially warranted in this case. If there is a significant possibility you will fall or have to rest on a piece whose failure for any reason will result in you decking, then back it up. Period.
It doesn't matter why you end up in an ambulance - bad gear, bad placement, bad rock, or shifted gear from repeatedly weighting and unweighting it - relying on a single piece at a decking placement is simply a case of "pilot error" under any and every circumstance.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 6:42 PM
Post #111 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
tgreene,
I'm glad that you're arguing the other side, (whether it be because you love Aliens or just for the sake of conversation)
You know you hit it home when you get someone to sling at yah :twisted:
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 23, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #112 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: You know you hit it home when you get someone to sling at yah :twisted: -Danno
just trying to get the dude to compare apples with apples.
also, you are a poopy head.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 6:56 PM
Post #113 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
In reply to: also, you are a poopy head.
Sweet!
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 23, 2006, 6:59 PM
Post #114 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
In reply to: "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one that if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior.
You have to be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding.
Free-soloing at your limit is "incredibly risky behavior."
Resting on a piece near the desk is trad-climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 7:05 PM
Post #115 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one that if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior. You have to be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding. Free-soloing at your limit is "incredibly risky behavior." Resting on a piece near the desk is trad-climbing.
No, tell me your kidding - Resting on a piece is not trad climbing - it's applying sport tactics to trad climbing when you deliberately hang on gear.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Aug 23, 2006, 7:09 PM
Post #116 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures. I saw your post about them and felt that, at least in the Metolius case, your post was misleading and factually incorrect. First of all, the 00 TCU you spoke of did not blow out under body weight. Second, to contrast Metolius' and CCH's responses to their respective gear failing, let's play a game. I'll name a post-accident manufacturer response and you tell me which company did it. 1. Pull 100% of finished product from the warehouse and test every single unit to 90% rated strength. 2. Test 50 units to total failure. 3. Share the results of testing with the public within 72 hours of the accident. 4. Call the accident a hoax. CCH's recent and apparently unchanged QC history is plane as day. Obviously, they didn't even have a plan in place to deal with such an emergency, despite the fact that their cams were already under fire for the -- still unaddressed -- misdrilled axle holes. We certainly can afford to lose such a company. And maybe it's about time we did. Anybody who would purchase an Alien right now is either a complete moron or he's been living in a closet on Mars for the last year or he has a Russ-Walling Home Alien Tester. Speaking of which, Russ, I too would be very interested in such a dee-vice... enough to pay $$ for it... and as long as I could use it on all makes and models, not just Aliens. :wink:
wurd
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 7:10 PM
Post #117 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Was it one of the orange aliens with the improperly drilled axle holes? That would make cch look really bad.
At this point I suppose a cam could be floating around out there with both defects, but no - if it suffered from the misdrilling the piece would have pulled from its placement intact and the climbers most likely would have assumed it was simply a bad placement unless they were aware of the issue and inspected the cam closely.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 7:11 PM
Post #118 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
I also have a hard time accepting tgreene's prattle about giving CCH the benefit of the doubt, backing up small gear, not trusting the original post until evidence is provided, ad nauseum. Tgreene, you're on a sinking ship and yet you keep defending them. The only reasons I've been able to discern for this mindlessness are 1) you love Aliens and don't want to see them gone (well join the club!), 2) earlier in your life you had one of your own inventions suffer a similar fate and now have sympathy, and 3) CCH is giving you free Aliens for acting as their consultant.
Well, lots of different people are having Aliens break on them; little dimple or not, that is BAD. And this BS about backing up small gear, never trusting just one piece, etc, just serves as an indicator to me that your climbing exists on a different plane than many people out there (generally those people who are upset with CCH). Tgreene, there happen to be many climbers who are out pushing their limits on desparate climbs, taking whippers all the time, and even climbing routes that only take the tiniest of gear.
You had a whipper on December 26th of last year? Wow! I've had more whippers than I can possibly count in just the past two weeks. I for one EXPECT MY GEAR TO WORK. When I place a tiny RP I know that it's possible for the rock to break or the wire to snap... I know that. But when I place a cam in a bomber placement, I COUNT ON THE BRAZE NOT FAILING. The Metolius cams... their failure mode is indicative of them being stressed beyond their normal tolerances. The trigger wire (spring) on the BD cam? Has this never happened to you?!?! I've had at least three BD cams over the course of my (short) climbing career pop springs out. I've either fixed them myself or sent them in to BD (they've promptly replaced them with brand new cams, no questions asked, by the way)... this is NO BIG DEAL. Brazes failing on mulitple Aliens -- this is a very big deal. I'm sorry tgreene, but perhaps in your world all your arguments and low expectations make sense, but for the dudes who are out there actually pushing the envelope with their climbing, it is appalling and unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 23, 2006, 7:23 PM
Post #119 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
jsj42. nice post.
you nailed it man.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 23, 2006, 7:33 PM
Post #120 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one that if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior. You have to be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding. Free-soloing at your limit is "incredibly risky behavior." Resting on a piece near the desk is trad-climbing.
Indeed. We take lead falls with single pieces between us and the deck. Surely we can just rest on the piece.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Aug 23, 2006, 7:45 PM
Post #121 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: Calling me names because of making associations to other failures ( be it on the ground or on route), is absurd at best, and clearly shows the level of incivilility that seems to be the norm with the anti-CCH camp these days. - Tim
I placed more Aliens over the w/e than anything else besides nuts... anti-Alien I am not.
There is no comparison to a trigger wire breaking in anyway with a cam failing apart. The fact that you keep insisting on this on this false comparison is laughable. You should add some PR line items to the invoices you send to CCH.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Aug 23, 2006, 7:48 PM
Post #122 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
In reply to: Speaking of which, Russ, I too would be very interested in such a dee-vice... enough to pay $$ for it... and as long as I could use it on all makes and models, not just Aliens. :wink:
If you read the thread from supertopo, Russ goes on to explain a bit more. Sounds like a low strength "screamer". You could actually do this with a screamer, if you want to waste $15 a pop; just cut the ends of the sewn tails so when it fully activates, it doesn't turn into a sling and shockload the full force of the car onto the alien. I'm thinking 3mm (or 2mm doubled) cord would work.
As for holding the alien... I was just going to loop some cord around the axle and pull the axle... which is what a fall would do. I thought about maybe using needle-nose vise pliers, but I don't know if clamping on the ball would deform it and cause problems with the braze below.
I'm going to go try this tomorrow, got an ancient, manky blue to test it out with. If it doesn't bend the axle, will try with all my aliens. Will post results later (if no one beats me to it).
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 23, 2006, 7:51 PM
Post #123 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: I'm sorry tgreene, but perhaps in your world all your arguments and low expectations make sense, but for the dudes who are out there actually pushing the envelope with their climbing, it is appalling and unacceptable.
Same goes for us pussies not pushing any envelopes jsj.
Trying to take the issue away from the shit CCH is doing by dissing on WC (who recalled the Helium carabiner based on a few that had slight cracks in the nose before they left the factory), Metolius (you can generate a bigger force on toproping than that little piece will carry), Trango (possibly a bad rivet, NO known failures, immediate recall) and Black Diamond (springs for Christs sake) is unbelievable.
BTW, my entire rack is now Heliums based on how fantastic that product is and on how well they conducted themselves in self-initializing the recall based on a QCS error THEY CAUGHT IN HOUSE . I own a rack of Maxcams as well, and based on Trangos responsiveness and reputation gladly and easily trust them not to fall apart.
CCH had Wild Country as a role model and did a piss poor job of trying to avoid responsibility during the last 3 big issues that have come up with this stuff. I still own Aliens, but dude, don't pawn their bad responses off, cause they need to own up to it before somebody really dies.
It's Bullshit and so is your attitude.
That they finally have take a shot at correcting all the mfg errors is a good thing. You only remind us how poor they have done in the past with your viewpoint that "everybody else does it", cause tgreene, NOBODY else is doing what CCH has done in terms of poor responsiveness and bad reputation. UNDERSTAND? WE'RE DISCUSSING CCH HERE AND STAYING FOCUSED ON NOT HAVING A HUMAN BEING DIE NEXT WEEK .
Shit, I was out not long ago and dude I was climbing with didn't know about the "Dimple" issue on his Aliens.
Worth remembering that not everybody is all over the online thing. Check your partners stuff too.
|
|
|
|
|
phojar
Aug 23, 2006, 7:56 PM
Post #124 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: Well, lots of different people are having Aliens break on them; little dimple or not, that is BAD.
I've been watching the CCH threads and I only count two that broke while climbing with them. Others broke during testing before the dimple recall, but from what I've read this case is first where a non-dimpled cam broke. Please correct me if I am wrong, if not don't make stuff up.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 8:01 PM
Post #125 of 194
(32795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one that if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior. You have to be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding. Free-soloing at your limit is "incredibly risky behavior." Resting on a piece near the desk is trad-climbing. Indeed. We take lead falls with single pieces between us and the deck. Surely we can just rest on the piece. Jay
Taking lead falls on single pieces at decking placements is in fact a risky behavior. Deliberately resting on them is equally risky. A vast majority of the time you don't place a piece with the deliberate intent to fall on it. The application of sport tactics to trad, where pieces are placed with a aforeknowledge and intent of resting on them, is a different deal altogether. The number of accidents occuring due to this behavior makes it clear this is not a risk-free behavior and doing it at at decking placement is all but asking for at least the possibility of trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 8:09 PM
Post #126 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
In reply to: Please correct me if I am wrong, if not don't make stuff up.
Sorry. "Lots" was an unintentional exaggeration. However, whether the failures were in the real-world or during testing during and after the recall shouldn't matter. The dimpled Aliens have manufacturing defects that make them not strong enough -- I think the climbing community should consider ourselves lucky that people were not seriously injured. Now, however, a non-dimpled Alien has failed.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 23, 2006, 8:17 PM
Post #127 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one that if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior. You have to be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding. Free-soloing at your limit is "incredibly risky behavior." Resting on a piece near the desk is trad-climbing. Indeed. We take lead falls with single pieces between us and the deck. Surely we can just rest on the piece. Jay Taking lead falls on single pieces at decking placements is in fact a risky behavior.
Agreed, but it is a reasonable risk, assuming you know how to place gear.
In reply to: Deliberately resting on them is equally risky.
In no way is it equally risky. Only a fool would take an intentional rest on a placement so bad it won't hold the force of him sagging onto the piece (about 3 times body weight, say 500 lb)
In reply to: The number of accidents occuring due to this behavior makes it clear this is not a risk-free behavior and doing it at at decking placement is all but asking for at least the possibility of trouble.
I don't know how many such accidents occur (and don't know how you could know), but such accidents don't mean that the practice is inherently risky; rather, the practioners are not competent at placing gear.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
phojar
Aug 23, 2006, 8:23 PM
Post #128 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: Sorry. "Lots" was an unintentional exaggeration.
Not a problem, just want to keep the issue clear.
In reply to: Now, however, a non-dimpled Alien has failed.
Allegedly failed, not trying to be a jerk here and I'm not saying the OP is a liar but it would be nice to see actual pictures of the suspect cam and it would certainly put to rest some of the debates that are ongoing.
I also find it odd that during the testing that went on before the last recall no tests showed non-dimpled aliens failed. If retailers pulled complete stocks and tested them it seems like if this really is a wide spread problem to all aliens manufactured during the time period that some non-dimpled ones would have failed during the tests. And if some non-dimpled aliens did fail during the tests then it would be very irresponsible for all parties involved in the testing if that information was not made public.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Aug 23, 2006, 8:29 PM
Post #129 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: NOBODY else is doing what CCH has done in terms of poor responsiveness and bad reputation.
Does anyone know for a fact that CCH has been contacted about this incident? Sure hard to have a response if they don't even know about it or are just going off this non-informational thread.
Back to our regularly scheduled lynching....
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 8:31 PM
Post #130 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
Some people posting here would have us think that those who have fallen as a result of Aliens failing are responsible (because they didn't back their piece up?!).
No. All these people did was trust the rated strength of the product (if they fell because of crappy placement or because they expected the piece to peform beyond it's limits, that would be different).
CCH is responsible for mislabeling their gear to lead us to believe that there is good quality control and that they will not fall apart.
However, I think that anyone who reads these threads had better take responsibility to back up/test/not use their Aliens. Anything else would be insane. Healyje, I think it is a risky behavior to rest on a single piece that keeps you from decking (I've done it but it freaks me out and I avoid it like the plague -- even on bolts), but it is not clear that his placement was suspect at all. What is clear is that the Alien fell apart under a load that it should have held. If the Alien didn't break, but it popped out of the rock, it would be fair to say this guy screwed up. But that was not the case. Frankly, if I was this guy I'd seriously considering suing.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 8:32 PM
Post #131 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
From the CCH website:
What are the strength ratings of my CCH Alien cams?
.33 -BLACK 1800lbs
3/8 -BLUE 2100lbs
1/2 -GREEN 2700lbs
3/4 -YELLOW 2700lbs
1.0 -RED 2700lbs
1.5 -ORANGE 3500lbs
Proposed edits:
What are the strength ratings of my CCH Alien cams?
.33 -BLACK: Don't trust them; use them if you have no other options
3/8 -BLUE: People have taken big falls on them and they've held, but don't trust them
1/2 -GREEN: No problems yet, but don't use ones with dimples
3/4 -YELLOW: No problems yet, but don't use ones with dimples
1.0 -RED: No problems yet, but don't use ones with dimples
1.5 -ORANGE: Dimples or not, sometimes these work and sometimes they fail under body weight
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Aug 23, 2006, 8:33 PM
Post #132 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
Healyje, I've been appreciative of the even-handed attitude you've had ever since the Alien cam failure issues first came to light. I say that so you'll understand that my question below is not from a position of disrepect.
In reply to: I'm not saying don't use this tactic or don't "take" - but I am saying be aware of the risks you are assuming when you apply this tactic to trad climbing. "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one that if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior. The talk in previous posts here about backing up such pieces were especially warranted in this case. If there is a significant possibility you will fall or have to rest on a piece whose failure for any reason will result in you decking then back it up. Period.
If taking/resting on a piece of gear is "incredibly risky," how much more risky would it be to take a fall on it? And if we don't have a fairly reasonable expectation that the piece will hold a fall, what's the point in using pro at all?
I agree that no one should take unnecessary risks or treat trad climbing the same as sport climbing. But the whole idea behind placing protection is to "protect" you in a fall (and by extension, the far less stressful activity of resting on the gear if you absolutely must). And as jt512 and others have said, if you can't depend on that, you might as well just avoid climbs where there's even a remote possibility of falling.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 8:35 PM
Post #133 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I also find it odd that during the testing that went on before the last recall no tests showed non-dimpled aliens failed. If retailers pulled complete stocks and tested them it seems like if this really is a wide spread problem to all aliens manufactured during the time period that some non-dimpled ones would have failed during the tests. And if some non-dimpled aliens did fail during the tests then it would be very irresponsible for all parties involved in the testing if that information was not made public.
A back-channel effort was made to have all Aliens pulled from shelves and returned to retailers tested - dimpled and non-dimpled alike - but that did not occur. Paul at Mountain Gear, on their own initiative to their credit, tested a small sample of cams and the results were such that they pulled them. No larger scale testing of non-dimpled Aliens was ever conducted by anyone to my knowledge despite numerous suggestions that retailers should have hired testing of all Aliens pulled from shelves or returned during the last flare up in this saga. This is again part of my concern that some of these large co-ops are now just big retailers long divorced from their roots. They once had the necessary staff, knowledge, and concern relative to an outdoor specialty like climbing to well serve that clientele, but I'd say those days are long since gone at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 8:52 PM
Post #134 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Healyje, I think it is a risky behavior to rest on a single piece that keeps you from decking (I've done it but it freaks me out and I avoid it like the plague -- even on bolts), but it is not clear that his placement was suspect at all. What is clear is that the Alien fell apart under a load that it should have held. If the Alien didn't break, but it popped out of the rock, it would be fair to say this guy screwed up. But that was not the case. Frankly, if I was this guy I'd seriously considering suing.
Josh, you of all people should understand the underlying issue of personal responsibility. If the bottom line is we are consumers first and climber second I'd agree with you - and maybe that's the way younger climbers now view things, as just another consumer issue. Most older climbers who remember making some gear, tying their own slings, and using the latest dubiously designed but well manufactured piece of gear probably have a different take on things.
I personally still believe you are ultimately responsible for everything that occurs when you leave the ground. Bad things can and do happen whether it is a sharp edge, rock fall, or bad gear. The point is, that when you fall or rest on single piece of gear at a decking placement you put your self at risk should anything bad occur. Bummer it was bad gear, but he'd still have taken the same ambulance ride if the rock or placement were bad or if the piece had shift as he climbed above.
I am in no way attempting to absolve CCH of their responsibility and complicity in this incident but am pointing out that the bottomline was that the decision to rest on a single piece at a decking placement opened the door for the possibility of something bad happening. Folks may disagree with me and say that a bolt or a piece of gear should not fail, and that it's someone else's fault if it does - but rock, gear, and bolts all do fail in the real world, and you should be prepared for that possibility when you leave the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
phojar
Aug 23, 2006, 8:53 PM
Post #135 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: This is again part of my concern that some of these large co-ops are now just big retailers long divorced from their roots. They once had the necessary staff, knowledge, and concern relative to an outdoor specialty like climbing to well serve that clientele, but I'd say those days are long since gone at this point.
I completely agree with this. When I returned my dimpled aliens to REI the guy working the climbing dept. told me they were going to sell off their stock of aliens and then stop stocking them. It struck me as strange b/c obviously they were not concerned with any potential safety issue since they were selling off the remaining stock of non-recalled without proper testing of the non-recalled cams. Not to highjack this thread any more than it already has been, but thanks for the info healyje.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 23, 2006, 8:54 PM
Post #136 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: In reply to: I also find it odd that during the testing that went on before the last recall no tests showed non-dimpled aliens failed. If retailers pulled complete stocks and tested them it seems like if this really is a wide spread problem to all aliens manufactured during the time period that some non-dimpled ones would have failed during the tests. And if some non-dimpled aliens did fail during the tests then it would be very irresponsible for all parties involved in the testing if that information was not made public. A back-channel effort was made to have all Aliens pulled from shelves and returned to retailers tested - dimpled and non-dimpled alike - but that did not occur. Paul at Mountain Gear, on their own initiative to their credit, tested a small sample of cams and the results were such that they pulled them. No larger scale testing of non-dimpled Aliens was ever conducted by anyone to my knowledge despite numerous suggestions that retailers should have hired testing of all Aliens pulled from shelves or returned during the last flare up in this saga. This is again part of my concern that some of these large co-ops are now just big retailers long divorced from their roots. They once had the necessary staff, knowledge, and concern relative to an outdoor specialty like climbing to well serve that clientele, but I'd say those days are long since gone at this point.
i'm confused. are you suggesting that REI didn't respond to part of a recall notice posted by CCH? or are you just saying that they should have broadened CCH's recall by doing pull testing on their own? if the answer is yes to either then my follow up question is: WTF?
i thought mgears testing was WAY above and beyond the responsibility a retailer should have to undertake.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 9:02 PM
Post #137 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I also find it odd that during the testing that went on before the last recall no tests showed non-dimpled aliens failed. If retailers pulled complete stocks and tested them it seems like if this really is a wide spread problem to all aliens manufactured during the time period that some non-dimpled ones would have failed during the tests. And if some non-dimpled aliens did fail during the tests then it would be very irresponsible for all parties involved in the testing if that information was not made public. A back-channel effort was made to have all Aliens pulled from shelves and returned to retailers tested - dimpled and non-dimpled alike - but that did not occur. Paul at Mountain Gear, on their own initiative to their credit, tested a small sample of cams and the results were such that they pulled them. No larger scale testing of non-dimpled Aliens was ever conducted by anyone to my knowledge despite numerous suggestions that retailers should have hired testing of all Aliens pulled from shelves or returned during the last flare up in this saga. This is again part of my concern that some of these large co-ops are now just big retailers long divorced from their roots. They once had the necessary staff, knowledge, and concern relative to an outdoor specialty like climbing to well serve that clientele, but I'd say those days are long since gone at this point. i'm confused. are you suggesting that REI didn't respond to part of a recall notice posted by CCH? or are you just saying that they should have broadened CCH's recall by doing pull testing on their own? if the answer is yes to either then my follow up question is: WTF? i thought mgears testing was WAY above and beyond the responsibility a retailer should have to undertake.
As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option.
I suspect it's because they are now simply retailers with no way to accomodate or treat one product much different than another relative to a recall or product defect. To have done the testing would mean that someone at those retailers still in power understood the importance of the issue to the climbing community and / or cared enough to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
Aug 23, 2006, 9:12 PM
Post #138 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
One of the problems on this site is that folks take one comment in an otherwise great post and find something in their experience that makes them disagree. Thats ok, but then they draw the line and start throwing mud.
Healyje's comment about not trusting one piece between you and the deck is actually the same philosophy behind not rapping off one piece. Yes, many of us have broken that rule a well. The key is to know when you are at higher risk and deal with it.
Check out this thread, it was a bolt that failed, not a piece of pro, but the same philosophy applies.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...topic_view=&start=30
As far as aliens go? Until there is more info it seems like mostly chatter. FISH's idea of a tester is great; however, CCH ought to be thinking about testing ALL of their sh&& and it is sad to think you gotto test all your gear yourself for the loads that the mfr indicates. Your lives and their livlihood could depend on their stated loads to be at least close. Frankly, if you are manufacturing a safety device, and it is rated for a certain load, I find it negligent to leave bad sh** out there on the market. Perhaps even criminally so; however, I doubt there are laws out there in this regard and as climbers I dont think we want laws like that...Bu my guess is a civil suit might triumph with the right evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #139 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
In reply to: Josh, you of all people should understand the underlying issue of personal responsibility.
;) yeah.
In reply to: If the bottom line is we are consumers first and climber second I'd agree with you - and maybe that's the way younger climbers now view things, as just another consumer issue. Most older climbers who remember making some gear, tying their own slings, and using the latest dubiously designed but well manufactured piece of gear probably have a different take on things
Of course, Aliens seem well-designed and dubiously manufactured.
In reply to: I personally still believe you are ultimately responsible for everything that occurs when you leave the ground. Bad things can and do happen...
In terms of risks, personally, I'm willing to risk climbing with only one rope -- even though it is a single piece of equipment that keeps me from the deck. I know that you are willing to take that risk too. If our ropes were to fail (and not due to a sharp edge or being exposed to battery acid or something like that), are you saying we are responsible for whatever happens to us? It seems to me that the only logical conclusion here is that responsibility is shared. I'm responsible for engaging in a risky behavior and I go into it knowing that equipment can fail. But, like you said, the equipment manufacturer is not absolved -- especially not just because there's a "Climbing is dangerous..." sticker on their gear. If they rate their equipment to a certain strength and claim to do quality control to ensure that these ratings are accurate, and then their gear fails due to a manufacturing error... well, there is a hell of a lot of responsibility on their shoulders too.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
Aug 23, 2006, 9:28 PM
Post #140 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
js, I could not agree with you more. The one thing that I think the mfr is responsible for is to ensure (and in keeping with current undustrial stds) that their load ratings actually mean something in a lab. Once it is on the rock they cant control the placement. But this particular failure sounds bad...
|
|
|
|
|
antiqued
Aug 23, 2006, 10:11 PM
Post #141 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243
|
In reply to: As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option.
The big box retailers have the opportunity to test a good size sample of all cams before they go on their shelves! They don't because it's not their job, it is the manufacturer's. Why didn't such screening occur at CCH on returned cams? Weren't all returned cams pull tested before going back to customers / big boxes?
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 11:16 PM
Post #142 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option. The big box retailers have the opportunity to test a good size sample of all cams before they go on their shelves! They don't because it's not their job, it is the manufacturer's. Why didn't such screening occur at CCH on returned cams? Weren't all returned cams pull tested before going back to customers / big boxes?
Yes, they were tested before being returned, and there is recent thread in the {Gear Head} forum in regards to this, with pictures provided.
And once again, ANY piece of gear that has a design flaw or defect that results in a failure whether on the ground during random cleaning or testing, or high on a rock when a catastrophic failure results in a tragic accident is unacceptable, and the manufacturer(s) should certainly take responsibility for their part, I've never once stated otherwise... I have however stated rather emphatically that it's critical for all of the facts to be properly presented before any of us can ever really know what has happened.
My point for bringing up the C3 spring & trigger bar issue, is because while they didn't fail on route, they do have an apparent design flaw that could most certainly allow them to do so. Also, how many defective harnesses were shipped out with the buckle problems..? That particular issue wouldn't have been one, if each and every harness were simply looked over before shipping, but they weren't, and these defective and recalled harnesses were and still are in circulation and active use, and thank God we've yet to read about a catastrophic failure, but the potential clearly exists -- just like Aliens with bad brazes.
Hell, while reviewing the Metolius thread earlier today, I caught a post about a mis-drilled trigger bar that resulted in a broken trigger. Yes, it was quickly replaced by Metolius when brought to their attention, but what I didn't see was either a public statement or a recall notice in regards to other potentially mis-drilled trigger bars -- much the same as with CCH and the mis-drilled Orange Alien lobes. In either instance, both are an unacceptable pain in the ass, but neither would result in a safety issue.
In reply to: I recently had a issue with a Metolius #7. I took a 15-20 footer and it held fine. When I got up there to pass up the cam again I notice it was a weird shape. Pulled it out and the thumb bar had broke from one of the sides attached to the cable. Sent it to metolius and found out that the holes had been drilled off set causing it to be weak. The replaced very quickly. Not a real big deal, still held the fall, and that to me is what is important.
JZ
As for my fall and regarding it as a "novice mistake", call it what you will, but what it actually was, was an onsight ground up clean trad FA attempt in which the tiny tree was about the diameter of your finger, and was slung solely for the purposes of creating a re-direct to ensure that the #4 nut would bite at a specific angle if I fell... I fell when I went for the crux and found nothing but a smooth sloper. I was at least 40 feet up and only had another 10' to top out on this potential route, when I fell onto the only piece of gear that I had been able to place. At that time, I did not yet have any BallNutz, Zeros or Aliens, so the only micro gear I had available was the tiny nuts, and that #4 was the smallest on my rack. The route in question will eat the 3 smaller BallNutz, as well as Green and Grey Zeros, but I've yet to get my head in the right place to re-attempt the FA, because had the #4 pulled (the tree/redirect obviously worked), I would have likely been killed that day, as I inverted when I hit the ledge, and was caught upside-down, w/o a helmet, 20 feet above a very rocky deck. I'm also aware that most "amateurs" (of which I clearly am) probably wouldn't have set a strategic directional to coincide with the angle of the fall-line in regards to the route itself.
http://gallery.gr-outdoors.net/album/00000001/BD4.jpg
Ignore the shadows and insets in the picture, because there is absolutely nothing there but very shallow & flaring ridges.
Flame away... I have my Big Boy panties on! :righton:
-Tim
|
|
|
|
|
fourfa
Aug 23, 2006, 11:17 PM
Post #143 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Posts: 39
|
What concerns would you guys have about Aliens with build dates of 5-99 and 10-00? A recent craigslist score from an climber selling a garage full of gear. Excellent condition, many of them never placed.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 11:25 PM
Post #144 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option. The big box retailers have the opportunity to test a good size sample of all cams before they go on their shelves! They don't because it's not their job, it is the manufacturer's. Why didn't such screening occur at CCH on returned cams? Weren't all returned cams pull tested before going back to customers / big boxes?
Of course by default it is a manufacturer's responsibility to ship reliable product, modern practices and QC systems, and individually or statistically pull test gear. But that wasn't the case at CCH at the time of the recall incident and given no one knew whether CCH had the will, capability, or capacity to do a larger-scale pull testing the big box retailers should have had an independent lab pull test the returns and a [statistically] significant portion the stock they pulled off their shelves. That is, if they really were anything more than that retailers. They had the resources to do it and the REI or EMS of even 10 or 15 years ago when they still at least vaguely in tune with climbing would have instituted the testing. At one time these companies did actually know something about the products they sell - sadly, that's no longer the case in the climbing department or, from what I can tell, on their product safety review committees.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 11:29 PM
Post #145 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: What concerns would you guys have about Aliens with build dates of 5-99 and 10-00? A recent craigslist score from an climber selling a garage full of gear. Excellent condition, many of them never placed.
Personally I'd bounce test any Alien made prior to the date I see a formal audit has been completed that finds their QC processes up to snuff.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 11:38 PM
Post #146 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option. The big box retailers have the opportunity to test a good size sample of all cams before they go on their shelves! They don't because it's not their job, it is the manufacturer's. Why didn't such screening occur at CCH on returned cams? Weren't all returned cams pull tested before going back to customers / big boxes? Yes, they were tested before being returned, and there is recent thread in the {Gear Head} forum in regards to this, with pictures provided.
No, CCH has tested recalled cams and cams folks have sent to them for testing. The opportunity that was lost at the time was the chance to test a significant sampling of the cams that were on, or recently departed from store shelves. Such testing on a large enough of a scale likely would have found non-dimpled brazing failures if they existed, and this incident now suggests they do. Such testing could have resulted in a broader recall scope that may have helped prevent this accident. The testing you refer to is and was no substitute for the opportunity that was lost.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Aug 24, 2006, 1:00 PM
Post #147 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
So, are we ever going to see a picture of the cam?
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 25, 2006, 4:18 AM
Post #149 of 194
(32573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Small request. Could the OP and the people involved make sure that Dave and CHH are contacted and in this loop for sure?
I'd like to hear what the factory says on all this.
Did some research on putting together a force measuring and testing device to test these and it would be priced out of my league. Russ's thing of having a strong dog on a leash, with a screamer connected to your bumper and the Alien with a cat walking in front to activate the dog may have some merit after all. :lol:
I don't think any old Schnauzer will do either, you'd need a big Rottweiler or an Irish Wolfhound kind of dog. :roll:
But at least it would be some kind of QC check!
Anybody have a stout dog they want to volunteer to be an Alien tester? Pay is all the Friskies they can eat, and of course the odd occasional cat as well for when breakage does occur.
|
|
|
|
|
aclove
Aug 26, 2006, 6:15 AM
Post #150 of 194
(32601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 14
|
I bounce tested my dozen or so non dimpled Aliens on the Prow at Paradise Forks today. They all held, nonetheless I'm done placing Aliens until CCH puts forth some sort of major effort to boost my trust and confidence. Anyone one know if they plan anything(besides the current minor effort)? My first thought when I heard about the recall/failure was how I tried multiple times to stop by CCH in Laramie and get some of my cams looked at and talk to them, possibly pick up some cams. After 3 weeks, I got ahold of someone and his excuse was they were too busy smoking pot(that was summer 2003 and I haven't purchased an Alien since). BTW there are bloody t-shirts at the base of the Prow.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 26, 2006, 11:40 AM
Post #151 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: My first thought when I heard about the recall/failure was how I tried multiple times to stop by CCH in Laramie and get some of my cams looked at and talk to them, possibly pick up some cams. After 3 weeks, I got ahold of someone and his excuse was they were too busy smoking pot (that was summer 2003 and I haven't purchased an Alien since).
Your statements have also been made with complete anonymity, which to many would show ill intent.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 26, 2006, 2:12 PM
Post #152 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: My first thought when I heard about the recall/failure was how I tried multiple times to stop by CCH in Laramie and get some of my cams looked at and talk to them, possibly pick up some cams. After 3 weeks, I got ahold of someone and his excuse was they were too busy smoking pot (that was summer 2003 and I haven't purchased an Alien since). Except the recall wasn't in 2003, it was announced on January 12, 2006... What we have here is a 3 year difference between your statement and reality... We also have a very libelous statement that has been made for the sole intent in harming anothers' reputation.
Truth is an absolute defense to libel.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 26, 2006, 2:15 PM
Post #153 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
What part of the recall being in the summer is 2003 is true..? :?
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Aug 26, 2006, 2:55 PM
Post #154 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sorry kids... OK dad. And by the way, if you think a green Alien and a #1 Ball Nut constitutes "thin :shock:" gear, you need to get out of Arkansas. I think climbing with Aliens is akin to playing Russian Roulette. I also completely agree with the statement that these forums should be treated as gossip and critically as such. I vividly remember my 7th grade English teacher telling my class that we need to learn to read and think critically, otherwise the whole world can take advantage of us. Thats why, IMO, moderation, like that of Mr. Box, and demands to "not cry wolf", like that of Mr. Greene, are just as obnoxious and mind-numbing as the ignorant posts they attempt to address.
HAHHAHAHAH. Trophy for you sir!
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Aug 26, 2006, 3:00 PM
Post #155 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
In reply to: What part of the recall being in the summer is 2003 is true..? :?
He never said that the recall was in 2003. To paraphrase the OP
When I heard about the recall in 2006, the first thing that came to mind was my experience with CCH in 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 26, 2006, 3:05 PM
Post #156 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Errrr, got it... It was a misread on my part, due to way too much shit going on right now (like as in this very moment - IE: Bachar/Karafa thread.)
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Aug 26, 2006, 3:16 PM
Post #157 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
In reply to: Errrr, got it... It was a misread on my part, due to way too much s--- going on right now ( like as in this very moment - IE: Bachar/Karafa thread.)
Checking that one out myself.
I remember when I first heard about the misdrilled axle holes, as well as their relatively faultless attitude about it. I made a post about how it simply was not good business ethics to not attempt to notify the consumer once they were initially notified. I got chewed out. Hard.
A few months later, the brazing issue was in full swing. The same poor business practices and ethics applied. I kept my mouth shut. I'd already made up my mind about CCH. They acted exactly as I predicted- "not our fault."
Well, technically it wasn't. They didn't braze the cables. They outsourced the work, despite clearly saying on their website that all work was done in house as well as personally inspected. The preceeding statement was obviously a farse.
Finally, Dave saw the light. If he didn't crush this thing he was going to lose his supporters. Maybe he sobered up for a few days. Maybe he started taking his meds. Maybe God himself came to Dave in a dream and told him to get his act together or he was head straight to h-e-doublehockeysticks. Who knows.
CCH did turn their act around. They do now pull test everything they sell. There is little doubt in my mind that anything produced after the recall is as safe as climbing gear can get.
However, the stuff produced before-hand is simply not. I think that's the moral of this thread and incident.
|
|
|
|
|
mistertyler
Aug 26, 2006, 3:48 PM
Post #158 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2003
Posts: 197
|
I don't have anything profound to write, but I did just speak with Dave at CCH and got a quick update from him:
1. He said they contacted the sheriff's office in the area and that they are waiting to hear back from them. (Apparantly the gear in question is being tested.)
2. He's still waiting to be contacted by the party involved in the accident.
3. He mentioned that he's planning on posting an update on this incident as soon as possible (maybe today, and on rc.com).
As has been the case every time I've spoken with him, he was very straightforward and friendly on the phone, and he sounded just as concerned as we all are to obtain the facts of this incident.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 26, 2006, 4:29 PM
Post #159 of 194
(33155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
As many of you are correctly aware, I've had absolutely zero knowledge or interaction with Aliens or CCH before the 1st of this year.
When all hell broke loose and rumors, accusations and misleading statements began flying, I voluntarily stepped forward in an attempt to keep things on track, rather than appearing like a train wreck.
Over the past several months I have developed a solid report and working relationship w/ CCH, thus when comments begin flying, I'll often be the first to step forth and strongly suggest that we keep to the facts surrounding these incidents.
I have spent a helluva lot of time this past week researching this alleged accident on behalf of CCH, and we've been in constant communication morning, noon & night... Without going into too many details, I can absolutely assure each and every member of the climbing community that this is being taken very seriously, even though no official reports or contacts have yet been made to CCH, nor has any information regarding the allegedly failed cam surfaced. 100% of the information that is known (and still very sketchy at best), we have had to uncover on our own.
As I've stated ad nauseum, in any industry, it is every manufacturers worst nightmare to find out about "alleged" incidents regarding their products, via 3rd party, non-verifiable means... Please keep in mind, that the use of the term "alleged" is because solid, verifiable evidence and proof of such incidents are yet to have surfaced.
We (myself and CCH separately) do know that an accident involving a 20-footer took place as has ultimately been verified by the Cococino County Sheriffs Dept, but absolutely zero specifics other than that have come to light... Again, when something happens that supposedly involves gear from any manufacturer, it's absolutely prudent that they be contacted immediately by someone in the know with full details in regards to who/what/where/when/why/how and most importantly contact information for the "who".
Again (ad nauseum), the information that is currently known, is no more than what has been posted here, except that verification has been confirmed through our (again, myself and CCH separately) own footwork.
- Tim
FWIW: The past week has been very painful and fucked up for me, between this and "the other" tragedy, because I pretty much just care about everyone and always try to look for the best in others and do the best that I'm able in regards to helping anyone and everyone when specific needs arise. To me, supporting CCH in their time of need, is no different than my current fundraising project for Bachar and Acopa during theirs...
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Aug 27, 2006, 1:44 AM
Post #160 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
tgreene - I would just like to point out from earlier, it was not the trigger of the TCU that failed, it was the thumb bar. (Or so the owner said). PM me if you wish to discuss what I think happened.
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Aug 27, 2006, 2:02 AM
Post #162 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
All i've got are U stem cams (other than the 6 friends coming in the mail...) so that raised a flag in my head!
|
|
|
|
|
aclove
Aug 27, 2006, 2:55 AM
Post #163 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 14
|
In reply to: Except the recall wasn't in 2003, it was announced on January 12, 2006... What we have here is a 3 year difference between your statement and reality... We also have a very libelous statement that has been made for the sole intent in harming anothers' reputation. Your statements have also been made with complete anonymity, which to many would show ill intent.
tgreene, Good job of taking so many swings in such a sort post!
However, I must not be very anonymous to you since you seem to know my intent so well.
Actually, I have no aim to harm CCH. Quite the opposite, I've taken falls from purple to orange on their cams and hope they turn into a solid trustworthy co. and I'll be staying tuned to see if that happens.
So it seems you have forced me to leave my name or something to prove myself. However, I dont really care about that, so I wont give you the satisfaction.
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Aug 27, 2006, 3:49 AM
Post #164 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
I have had many aliens blow on me, all the time.
Well, at least a few times on every wall.
come to think of it...TCU's also...and BD, and WC...yeah I have had pretty much everything blow on me at one time or another.
luckily I was high off the deck, so all I had to do was smoke a cig and go back up and put it in the RIGHT WAY.
If I was right off the deck I probly would have had a couple cams in if possible.
bottom lin, unless the cam is brand new and broken. it is the CLIMBERS own damn fault.
My condolences. :cry:
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Aug 27, 2006, 3:56 AM
Post #165 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
I've pretty much stopped following all this shite about CCH. It's not like I expect any cam to hold high factor falls truly reliably. The facts are these:
1. cams are weaker than most other rock protection
and
2. Climbing is friggin dangerous however much you sugar coat it. Still the best sport in the world though.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 27, 2006, 2:42 PM
Post #166 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I have had many aliens blow on me, all the time.
Read much? The placement didn't "blow." The piece broke.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Aug 27, 2006, 3:13 PM
Post #167 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
Off topic, but here's an interesting link. If you can wade past the mathetical miasma the guy makes some surprising points. Not saying they are all true, but something to think about next time you make a huge runout on one of your trusty cams.
http://www.amrg.org/...analysis_Attaway.pdf
I don't think he takes into account the effects of a dynamic belay though.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Aug 27, 2006, 3:44 PM
Post #168 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
In reply to: Why the lack in details?? you have zero credibility without them. Also, the new cams ARE being tested.. the cam you are talking about is from '04 why are you attacking CCH's NEW cams for an issue with an OLD cam? i'd say post up some details or don your flameproof jacket also, one forum is plenty of coverage for a weak ass story..
nice post jerk off. try keeping your weak ass shut next time. stick to the bouldering forums or spurt forum cause we all know thats where the non real climbers hang out
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 28, 2006, 2:55 AM
Post #169 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I've pretty much stopped following all this s--- about CCH. It's not like I expect any cam to hold high factor falls truly reliably. The facts are these: 1. cams are weaker than most other rock protection.
No, actually, cams are plenty strong. A cam should not break in any fall. You don't know what you are talking about.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Aug 28, 2006, 3:11 AM
Post #170 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
Any cam out there should be more than solid enough to hold together well past the force that would overcome its friction with the rock and tear it out of its placement.
Unless a cam is essentially umbrella chocked, there's no reason for it to blow apart if its placed correctly, regardless of fall factor.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Aug 28, 2006, 4:20 AM
Post #171 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: I've pretty much stopped following all this s--- about CCH. It's not like I expect any cam to hold high factor falls truly reliably.
Safe to say that you don't carry any cams on your rack, then?
Wanna sell the ones you don't use anymore? I'll pay shipping.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Aug 28, 2006, 4:06 PM
Post #172 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: As many of you are correctly aware, I've had absolutely zero knowledge or interaction with Aliens or CCH before the 1st of this year.
Over the past several months I have developed a solid report and working relationship w/ CCH, thus when comments begin flying, I'll often be the first to step forth and strongly suggest that we keep to the facts surrounding these incidents.
I'd like to point out my bolding above for further attention below.
In reply to: I have spent a helluva lot of time this past week researching this alleged accident on behalf of CCH, and we've been in constant communication morning, noon & night...
So on Aug. 23, when you posted this:
In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures.
you were actively an employee or contractor of CCH? And given the bolding above, you have been keeping to the facts regarding the Metolious and BD "failures" ( I have to point out here that a trigger malfunction is not a failure )?
In the interest of full disclosure, it would be interesting to note whose money you are taking while spreading disinformation about other manufacturer's.
In reply to: Sorry kids, but despite your feelings about the way Dave runs things, we can't possibly afford to lose another manufacturer.
You seem more than willing to bash multiple other manufacturers, but won't hear of it when it concerns CCH. Seems odd, does it not?
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Aug 28, 2006, 4:08 PM
Post #173 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
In reply to: You don't know what you are talking about. Jay
Ha ha, dick thing to say but probably true. But fact is, most other rock pro is rated higher than 15 or 16 kN. You can generate that much force on a top piece, combined weight of fall and belayer on the other side. Would you feel comfortable taking a 150 foot high factor whipper on a cam? Personally I'd consider myself thoroughly fuck ed
|
|
|
|
|
bkboyd
Aug 28, 2006, 4:45 PM
Post #174 of 194
(33153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 75
|
In reply to: In reply to: You don't know what you are talking about. Jay Ha ha, dick thing to say but probably true. But fact is, most other rock pro is rated higher than 15 or 16 kN. You can generate that much force on a top piece, combined weight of fall and belayer on the other side. Would you feel comfortable taking a 150 foot high factor whipper on a cam? Personally I'd consider myself thoroughly f--- ed
From the Black Diamond site:
#10 hex and #10 stopper rated to 10kn
0.75 camalot rated to 14 kn
From the Metolius site:
larger curved nuts (5-10) rated to 10kn
fat cams sizes 3 to 8 rated to 13.3kn
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Aug 28, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #175 of 194
(32932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: Would you feel comfortable taking a 150 foot high factor whipper on a cam? Personally I'd consider myself thoroughly f--- ed
I bet I'm not the only one who'd be interested in hearing what kind of pro you've felt "comfortable" on when taking a 150-ft, high-factor fall!
JL
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Aug 28, 2006, 4:58 PM
Post #176 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
Whatever dude. Excuse me while I hurl myself off a cliff anchored to one of your super-strong cams. Fuck it man, pro rips all the time, it's a dangerous sport; that's why I do it. But I don't delude myself that my anchor will never blow. And no, I don't expect any pro to hold a 150 ft whipper. The point is people often delude themselves that their pro can hold any fall, no matter how hard. It can't. You'll die.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Aug 28, 2006, 5:16 PM
Post #177 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: ...it's a dangerous sport; that's why I do it...
:lol: you're like soo toootally X-treeeeem Johny Utah... dhuuude.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 28, 2006, 5:23 PM
Post #178 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
In reply to: f--- it man, pro rips all the time, it's a dangerous sport; that's why I do it.
I think you're missing the point. If the lobes deformed, or the rock broke, or the cam just plain ripped out of the placement, I don't think CCH would have anything to worry about. I also don't think anyone would be making posts about faulty gear either. I've had more than a few pieces rip out in falls over the course of my climbing career and I never felt a need to post about it on the internet.
But that's not what is happening here. What happened is the cam tore in half in a way that simply should not have happened.
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Aug 28, 2006, 5:27 PM
Post #179 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
In reply to: you're like soo toootally X-treeeeem Johny Utah... dhuuude.
Spare me, will you. Driving's dangerous. Crossing the fucking street is dangeous. Extreme has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Aug 28, 2006, 5:31 PM
Post #180 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
In reply to: The point is people often delude themselves that their pro can hold any fall, no matter how hard. It can't. You'll die.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect said cam, IF PLACED PROPERLY, to hold any fall that I might reasonably otherwise survive.
Good for you for your mentality that any piece might blow, doubling up and all that, but fact is it is not unreasonable to expect a cam to hold to AT LEAST it's rated load.
edited because in haste I used a poor example, as sited by roy below.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Aug 28, 2006, 5:53 PM
Post #181 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: you're like soo toootally X-treeeeem Johny Utah... dhuuude. Spare me, will you. Driving's dangerous. Crossing the f---ing street is dangeous. Extreme has nothing to do with it.
Hint; extreme had nothing to do with it.
Why are so many people unable to grasp that it is not accetable that a cam just fall apart. I find myself relying on a single piece of gear (often between me and the ground) on a regular basis and I don't think it is too much to ask that the said gear do what it is advertised to do.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Aug 28, 2006, 6:06 PM
Post #182 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: The point is that if BD says a .75 C4 can hold 13kN and a doctor tells me that a 12kn fall is the limit of physical tolerance for a human body before internal organd tear loose and you hemmorhage to death, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect said cam, IF PLACED PROPERLY, to hold any fall that I might reasonably otherwise survive.
Wideguy, stick to clipping bolts until you understand what is wrong with your comment...you're a danger to yourself and partners.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Aug 28, 2006, 6:08 PM
Post #183 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: In reply to: you're like soo toootally X-treeeeem Johny Utah... dhuuude. Crossing the f---ing street is dangeous.
mmm yeah... that's the only reason I make the trek across that path of doom.
I live my life on the edge, brah!... wouldn't have it any other way.
Watch out. I'm dangerous.
I drink my Mtn Dew and I'm revel in my Xtreemness. :wink: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Aug 28, 2006, 6:52 PM
Post #184 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
In reply to: In reply to: The point is that if BD says a .75 C4 can hold 13kN and a doctor tells me that a 12kn fall is the limit of physical tolerance for a human body before internal organd tear loose and you hemmorhage to death, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect said cam, IF PLACED PROPERLY, to hold any fall that I might reasonably otherwise survive.Wideguy, stick to clipping bolts until you understand what is wrong with your comment...you're a danger to yourself and partners.
OK admittedly, I posted faulty math. I was in a hurry to make a point and made it badly. I am familiar with the mechanics and load distribution involved.
The fact remains that if a 13 or 14kN unit is placed properly in solid rock it would be pretty damn hard to create a force that should exceed that load on that piece and cause it to fail. Theoretically it's possible but practical history says it doesn't happen.
To get back to the topic at hand, sounds like the fall in question did not generate a force sufficiant to break the cam and the climber who placed it had every right to expect that his piece would not fail below it's rated limit.
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Aug 28, 2006, 7:19 PM
Post #185 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
In reply to: mmm yeah... that's the only reason I make the trek across that path of doom. I live my life on the edge, brah!... wouldn't have it any other way. Watch out. I'm dangerous. I drink my Mtn Dew and I'm revel in my Xtreemness. :wink: :lol:
My recommendation is to mumble "urr..gnarly...gnarly" in your sleep and rob small schoolchildren of their milk money.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 28, 2006, 7:41 PM
Post #186 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: In reply to: mmm yeah... that's the only reason I make the trek across that path of doom. I live my life on the edge, brah!... wouldn't have it any other way. Watch out. I'm dangerous. I drink my Mtn Dew and I'm revel in my Xtreemness. :wink: :lol: My recommendation is to mumble "urr..gnarly...gnarly" in your sleep and rob small schoolchildren of their milk money.
Ridgeclimber you rock! That link to the AMGA rope/gear tests is awesome too!
Thanks!
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Aug 28, 2006, 9:15 PM
Post #187 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
Anytime bro.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Aug 29, 2006, 4:20 PM
Post #188 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
tgreene - I was still curious as to your response to the below. It seems you have abandoned this thread...
In reply to: In reply to: As many of you are correctly aware, I've had absolutely zero knowledge or interaction with Aliens or CCH before the 1st of this year.
Over the past several months I have developed a solid report and working relationship w/ CCH, thus when comments begin flying, I'll often be the first to step forth and strongly suggest that we keep to the facts surrounding these incidents.
I'd like to point out my bolding above for further attention below. In reply to: I have spent a helluva lot of time this past week researching this alleged accident on behalf of CCH, and we've been in constant communication morning, noon & night... So on Aug. 23, when you posted this: In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures. you were actively an employee or contractor of CCH? And given the bolding above, you have been keeping to the facts regarding the Metolious and BD "failures" ( I have to point out here that a trigger malfunction is not a failure )? In the interest of full disclosure, it would be interesting to note whose money you are taking while spreading disinformation about other manufacturer's. In reply to: Sorry kids, but despite your feelings about the way Dave runs things, we can't possibly afford to lose another manufacturer. You seem more than willing to bash multiple other manufacturers, but won't hear of it when it concerns CCH. Seems odd, does it not? Murf |
|
|
|
|
zara
Sep 1, 2006, 10:10 AM
Post #189 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2004
Posts: 60
|
so my question now is.. are the aliens that say "tensile tested" on them (like mine do) Are they safe to climb on?
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Sep 11, 2006, 3:31 AM
Post #190 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: so my question now is.. are the aliens that say "tensile tested" on them (like mine do) Are they safe to climb on?
I suspect that they would be at least as good if not better than most other gear out there.
Short answer would be "Hell Yes". :lol:
___________________________________________________________
Added:
BTY: I sent everyone which wasn't stamped "tensile tested" back for testing. All of mine are now stamped tested. Every damn on. I sent them in 8-31-2006 and recieved them all back stamp 9-13-2006.
THANK YOU CCH (and Tgreene) for doing this for me. (Please, don't think of this as another opprotunity to dig at the company by saying they should have been doing this all along. They are making progress and I'm damn happy they checked them all for me.)
Just do it.
Regards
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Sep 11, 2006, 5:24 AM
Post #191 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2003
Posts: 663
|
In reply to: So, are we ever going to see a picture of the cam?
yeah.
been wading backwards looking for this too
maybe i missed them...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Sep 19, 2006, 7:32 PM
Post #193 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
Not meaning to ressurect a dead and buried thread. However, even if my information was incorrect about cams being weaker than other pro, my point is the same. My 150 foot high factor fall was actually unnecessary. Just consider a 4-foot high factor (1.8-9) fall; it generates the same amount of force. If your belayer is tight to the anchors and using a static locking belay device, the forces on the top piece (not the climber) could easily break even the strongest gear. With just a four foot fall. My point in ranting like this and going off topic is not to say that gear sucks and you should never use it; what I want to say is more along the lines of, maybe we should be more careful about giving a dymaic enough belay, and maybe not using a grigri/cinch on trad routes whenever possible. See what I mean?
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Sep 20, 2006, 3:00 AM
Post #194 of 194
(30206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: Not meaning to ressurect a dead and buried thread. However, even if my information was incorrect about cams being weaker than other pro, my point is the same. My 150 foot high factor fall was actually unnecessary. Just consider a 4-foot high factor (1.8-9) fall; it generates the same amount of force. If your belayer is tight to the anchors and using a static locking belay device, the forces on the top piece (not the climber) could easily break even the strongest gear. With just a four foot fall. My point in ranting like this and going off topic is not to say that gear sucks and you should never use it; what I want to say is more along the lines of, maybe we should be more careful about giving a dymaic enough belay, and maybe not using a grigri/cinch on trad routes whenever possible. See what I mean?
:roll:
JL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
