|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
May 11, 2007, 5:51 PM
Post #201 of 354
(18983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: azrockclimber wrote: I just don't get why anyone would continue to use this product....It was good... but not good enough to risk my life for even a second. It's only the ones made in the past couple years that are in question. There is zero question about earlier production that have logged countless falls over the years. That this was an 11d R or X route is all the more reason not to trust a single placement, no matter what it was. Arguing otherwise is idiotic. People here have waaay too much faith in gear. Biners break all the time, shit happens, be ready for it.
hmm idiotic....?
Dude...if that pic I saw earlier was the placement...It was BOMBER...you should be able to trust that placement...AND if it had broken and it was another company then it would be one of a few failures for them rather than one of MANY failures for CCH.
I really don't understand what the history of these cams has to do with their "recent" history( the last few years)... they are failing all over the place....
Yes biners fail.... if the SAME BINERS, FROM THE SAME COMPANY were failing regularly.... guess what... I wouldn't use those either....
I am completely aware that any cam could fail...Thats why I practice safe sex...I mean, thats why I back my shit up when I think it is a "high" risk area...or higer than normal. And to be honest that is incase the placement pulls outta soft stone/slides/walks/rope unclips/crossloading...whatever...I am not really considering that my camalot is going to blow apart. (factor 2 situations I do double up on)
When a specific type of camming device is repeatedly failing.... It's not going to be on my rack anymore...
|
|
|
|
|
burrito
May 11, 2007, 5:53 PM
Post #202 of 354
(18981 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2006
Posts: 108
|
cracklover wrote: Alex: I take your point that such lawsuits may serve the greater good in keeping the population safer than they'd otherwise be. But this isn't about greater good. This is about *my* safety, *your* safety, and that of the people we love. Let's say the threat of public action results in cams that are good 9999 out of 10000 times. That's a damn good cam! But even so, someone's got that one in 10000 cam that's a dud. And you know what? If it's on my rack, and Allison falls on it, and it fails, all the percentages in the world, all the lawsuits, that reduced the risk, and the lawsuits yet to come - none of that will keep me from being devastated if she gets seriously hurt or worse. So when i hand my rack over to Allison, or when i get on the sharp end, part of the responsibility of being a true leader is having done the due diligence of knowing that the gear we're going to use is acceptably safe. That is *my* responsibility, no-one else's. GO
I see what you're saying, and I'm on board with that. But I'm still not willing to say that you bear the ultimate responsibility personally. Because let's just say you did your due diligence, you tested your pro, it held up, and then Al used it and it failed. That wouldn't be a lack of responsibility on your part, right? It would be the result of an outside factor (say, poor manufacturing) over which you had literally no control. I think we're basically in agreement, but like I said, I believe I'm responsible for my safety only up to the point at which I am capable of being so -- then it is, perhaps unfortunately, in others' hands. 
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
May 11, 2007, 6:07 PM
Post #203 of 354
(18958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Regardless of the arguments above for personal responsibility (which I happen to agree with), it is time this was settled with a law suite. CCH is producing a product that has failed in multiple ways, while being used properly.
Personal responsibility in mind, there is no excuse for CCH. Esp. in light of their poor, almost non-existant, responce to the issue. They should be put out of business for good. There are other companies out there who can do this job right.
CCH's has a "personal responsibility," also, to produce a quality product, that performs as they say it will. There is no excuse for them selling shit. And if "accidents happen" then they should be breaking their own back to make things right.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Keep fooling people and three strikes your out. I understand that we do need to be very warry of climbing gear, and must inspect gear and climb safly, but that is no defence for CCH producing a crappy product that they won't even back themselves. Its only a warning to be heeded.
F' CCH. They're dirt.
-Boy
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 11, 2007, 6:38 PM
Post #204 of 354
(18908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
altelis wrote: but, for the record, what you said here is different than what you said before.
No, it's not. My message is pure and simple: when trad climbing, once you leave the ground, you and your partner are responsible for yourselves. Among other things, that means being responsible for your gear being in workable order. Does anyone feel that it wasn't a terrible tragedy that Todd Skinner didn't retire that harness? You're responsible for your gear. I just didn't go into detail before on exactly what my process of trying to be responsible for my gear entails.
In reply to: before: test all gear or you are irresponible. now: inspect once (assuming a reliable company, if not a reliable company, you're the fool for buying them in the first place). if visual inspection seems iffy or not reliable, give the gear (assuming a piece of pro) a quick test. fleshed out, your point makes sense, and i agee. cool. enjoy yosemite!
You may have heard me say test all gear to its limit, but that's not what I said. Anyway, glad we see eye-to-eye now.
Cheers!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 11, 2007, 7:03 PM
Post #205 of 354
(18879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
burrito wrote: But I'm still not willing to say that you bear the ultimate responsibility personally. Because let's just say you did your due diligence, you tested your pro, it held up, and then Al used it and it failed. That wouldn't be a lack of responsibility on your part, right? It would be the result of an outside factor (say, poor manufacturing) over which you had literally no control. I think we're basically in agreement, but like I said, I believe I'm responsible for my safety only up to the point at which I am capable of being so -- then it is, perhaps unfortunately, in others' hands.
I'm sorry, but I really disagree with you on this one. A cam is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. If a house builder built you a house that fell down, would you feel fine with him blaming his hammer? No, you'd say he should have used a different hammer.
I'm not looking at this as a liability issue. I'm sure that in the eye of the law, much of the responsibility rests on the manufacturer for making an inconsistent product and/or for making false claims about the testing of that product. And that's as it should be.
Nor do I pretend to have complete control over the situation when I climb. But just because my means are limited, that does not limit my responsibility.
Trad climbing is not like food and shelter. It's not a necessity. Furthermore, no-one's holding a gun to any of our heads. By making the crazy choice to take up the sharp end, I think we are making what is, in fact, a pretty radical claim: To have the tools, both physical and mental, to successfully accomplish our task or fail safely, and the judgement to know how to accomplish that. If I don't think I have what it takes to do that adequately well (and that includes knowing how to test my gear when it's suspect), I have no business being on the sharp end of the rope.
And then any accidents that happen - well, it sucks, but that's a risk I signed up for.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
112
May 11, 2007, 7:07 PM
Post #206 of 354
(18873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
azrockclimber wrote: And to be honest that is incase the placement pulls outta soft stone/slides/walks/rope unclips/crossloading...whatever...I am not really considering that my camalot is going to blow apart.
Agree!
I am wanting more 'new' older (not C4) camalots in the 1, 2, and 3 sizes, because, imo, their f*cking tanks! (or little-mini tanks) Aliens have always been my "black, blue, green" peices, although I own others, and I kinda think the small stuff might still be good. Were any of these failures in the smaller CCH cams?
|
|
|
|
|
reg
May 11, 2007, 7:14 PM
Post #207 of 354
(18862 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
dynosore wrote: translation: I'm a spoiled baby who can't admit I'm wrong, good luck in life crackhead
pot callin the kettle black?
to all: i like cracks "fuse" idea - but don't know how to implement it. i guess you could bounce to 3kn or fall on an overhanging route (with back up/tr) and a 3k fuse in the mix. ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
chalkfree
May 11, 2007, 7:17 PM
Post #208 of 354
(18857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 512
|
Dude, an accident is getting hit by a rock. Or mantling onto a rattler. Or putting a cam in shitty rock. Or a million other things that you can do wrong.
Falling on a UIAA tested cam made by a serious gear company and having it come apart is in my mind a different sort of thing.
Sure he could have tested it and maybe seen it fail. He didn't. I haven't worked a way out to test my harness or atc. I'm still going to use them because they come with a certification I trust.
The moral of this whole mess is that trusting CCH might be a mistake. It's an awful thing for pinsandbones to have his trust repaid like this, but the rest of us need not make that mistake.
BTW: "Biners fail all the time?" With what probability? I've certainly never seen one break in climbing usage, how many people have?
|
|
|
|
|
burrito
May 11, 2007, 7:31 PM
Post #209 of 354
(18833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2006
Posts: 108
|
cracklover wrote: burrito wrote: But I'm still not willing to say that you bear the ultimate responsibility personally. Because let's just say you did your due diligence, you tested your pro, it held up, and then Al used it and it failed. That wouldn't be a lack of responsibility on your part, right? It would be the result of an outside factor (say, poor manufacturing) over which you had literally no control. I think we're basically in agreement, but like I said, I believe I'm responsible for my safety only up to the point at which I am capable of being so -- then it is, perhaps unfortunately, in others' hands. I'm sorry, but I really disagree with you on this one. A cam is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. If a house builder built you a house that fell down, would you feel fine with him blaming his hammer? No, you'd say he should have used a different hammer. . . . Nor do I pretend to have complete control over the situation when I climb. But just because my means are limited, that does not limit my responsibility. Trad climbing is not like food and shelter. It's not a necessity. Furthermore, no-one's holding a gun to any of our heads. By making the crazy choice to take up the sharp end, I think we are making what is, in fact, a pretty radical claim: To have the tools, both physical and mental, to successfully accomplish our task or fail safely, and the judgement to know how to accomplish that. If I don't think I have what it takes to do that adequately well (and that includes knowing how to test my gear when it's suspect), I have no business being on the sharp end of the rope. And then any accidents that happen - well, it sucks, but that's a risk I signed up for. GO
The analogy in your first paragraph is lost on me, either because it isn't actually analogous, or because my morning coffee is wearing off. Either way, I guess we can talk more about it in person.
Beyond that, I agree that, by engaging in an inherently dangerous activity, we accept the risks associated with it (one of them being gear failure, leading to injury or death).
I don't think the two (or three or four) lines of thought in this thread are necessarily inconsistent, or that anyone's opinions are right or wrong -- the bottom line is that there are lots of factors to consider when we engage in what most people seem to think is completely irrational behavior. The key is to be as rational and thoughtful as possible in its face, I guess.
Have fun in Yosemite. And be safe! 
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 11, 2007, 7:40 PM
Post #210 of 354
(18820 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Thanks Alex! See you in a week or so. Say hi to the Gunks from me!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
highangle
May 11, 2007, 7:40 PM
Post #211 of 354
(18819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 151
|
Cracklover wrote: In reply to: A cam is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. If a house builder built you a house that fell down, would you feel fine with him blaming his hammer? No, you'd say he should have used a different hammer.
Can't believe I am jumping into this drivel, but there HAS to be some level at which an item must perform in the manner that it is stated, without defects. Period. Would the discussion be any different if he hadn't hit the ground?
Yeah, maybe it could have been backed up, but how do you back up the first piece off a belay, the first piece above a ledge, etc? As stated before, how do you test your rope, harness, biners? How do you back those single points of protection up? There are certain circumstances that you have to expect that a manufacturer did their job and an item advertised to be rated for a certain force should not fail far below that.
Driving is not like food and shelter either, driving is dangerous. Should I inspect every friggin' part of my vehicle before I get into it? All it takes is one seatbelt, airbag, brake, etc failing to ruin your day. Do you back them up? Or walk?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 11, 2007, 10:35 PM
Post #212 of 354
(18718 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: ..That this was an 11d R or X route is all the more reason not to trust a single placement, no matter what it was. Arguing otherwise is idiotic. People here have waaay too much faith in gear. Biners break all the time, shit happens, be ready for it...
Hey Roy,
Why do you think a route gets its "R" or "X" rating in the first place? I'll answer this for you. It's because these routes will often have only a single good (or not so good) piece between you and disaster. How deliciously ironic that you accuse others of being "idiotic."
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 11, 2007, 11:07 PM
Post #213 of 354
(18689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: dynosore wrote: Would *I* have one alien as the only piece keeping me off the deck? Hell no. But that doesn't make it right that they produce a defective product and market it as trustworthy. No. Where you get off thinking that I'm apologizing for CCH is beyond me. Your reading comprehension is nil. I'm done arguing with you. Alex: I take your point that such lawsuits may serve the greater good in keeping the population safer than they'd otherwise be. But this isn't about greater good. This is about *my* safety, *your* safety, and that of the people we love. Let's say the threat of public action results in cams that are good 9999 out of 10000 times.
But that's not even remotely the case with CCH. They have established a pattern of producing unreliable gear over the last couple of years.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 11, 2007, 11:16 PM
Post #214 of 354
(18681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
jt512 wrote: cracklover wrote: dynosore wrote: Would *I* have one alien as the only piece keeping me off the deck? Hell no. But that doesn't make it right that they produce a defective product and market it as trustworthy. No. Where you get off thinking that I'm apologizing for CCH is beyond me. Your reading comprehension is nil. I'm done arguing with you. Alex: I take your point that such lawsuits may serve the greater good in keeping the population safer than they'd otherwise be. But this isn't about greater good. This is about *my* safety, *your* safety, and that of the people we love. Let's say the threat of public action results in cams that are good 9999 out of 10000 times. But that's not even remotely the case with CCH. They have established a pattern of producing unreliable gear over the last couple of years. Jay
Yes. All the more responsibility on us now, instead of CCH. This has become the frog and scorpion fable, writ real. I have to agree with Gabe that ultimate responsibility lies with each of us, no matter how much we wish it otherwise sometimes. This CCH debacle, or whatever you'd like to call it, just drove the point home is all.
|
|
|
|
|
m2j1s
May 11, 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #215 of 354
(18668 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Posts: 77
|
This post has to do with souders crack, so I wanted to post it here. today I was climbing it, and it turns out the crack is very very unstable. I got about 3/4 of the way up (on toprope because we led rock wars on the right of it) and I was on the last crack section of it. A huge chunk, about 30 pounds, broke off when I put my weight on the crack up high. This section was not marked off with an X, nor did it have any apparent fracture or weakpoint, it actually looked like one of the most solid points of the climb. The flake rocketed towards the ground, just missing my belayer who jumped out of the way (the rock landed right where he was standing)... and then I decided to lower off because the rest of the climb consisted of a similar crack system to the one that broke off. We soon found out that the rock landed on the rope, and left a clean cut. The rope was completely snapped in half, and I was halfway up Souders. Luckily my belayer was lowering me with two hands, so when the end of the rope slipped through his right hand, he cought it with his left. There was a small ledge a few feet below me so he climbed up a little way with me on belay so I could be lowered to the ledge, then he took me off belay to grab the other half of the rope and tie a double fishermans to join the ropes and finish the belay...scary experiance, could have gone wrong in many other ways than it did and currently I'm just thankful to be here (as I'm sure they guy who fell last week is)...so basically, souders crack is chossy flakey crap. by the way I left two draws on top (didnt feel like fetching them after the experiance), so if anyone finds them and feels like being gracious, pm me :)
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
May 12, 2007, 9:44 PM
Post #216 of 354
(18534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
cracklover wrote: I'm sorry, but I really disagree with you on this one. A cam is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. If a house builder built you a house that fell down, would you feel fine with him blaming his hammer? No, you'd say he should have used a different hammer.
Poor analogy I feel, Gabe. Say the builder goes to work, he pulls his hammer out, gives it a quick visual inspection and all looks well. But the first nail he tries to drive the head of the hammer unexpectedly shatters, sending a shard into his eye. The pain causes him to fall off the roof and break his back. Would you blame the builder for using an Estwing instead of a Stanley or would you want to know why the fuck Estwing made an exploding hammer?
There is a reasonable expectation that goods manufactured and supposedly tested will perform as they are advertised and rated. Any time they fail in ways other than they should, the manufacturer shoulders that blame.
Now, in hindsight I agree that noone should trust that in CCH now, and if someone does and get hurt then there is a certain amount of "fool me twice, Shame on Me."
Bur prior to all this CCH business I heard NOONE talk about pull testing or drop testing cams when new. How many people rolled into New Platz, stopped at Rock and Snow to buy a last minute addition and plugged it into the rock that afternoon. Prior to all this business, without the benefit of hindsight, with the way Aliens were RAVED about by everyone, would you still say that the climber was to fault in this case because he didn't drop test his Alien?
I agree that leaders, ultimately are on their own but you should have SOME expectation that if you do YOUR part right, your gear will do its.
(This post was edited by wideguy on May 12, 2007, 9:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wings
May 13, 2007, 2:53 AM
Post #217 of 354
(18437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 283
|
Wish I could give you a trophy. Nice job of summarizing one end of this discussion so well.
- Seyil
|
|
|
|
|
dynoho
May 13, 2007, 3:20 AM
Post #218 of 354
(18415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 285
|
There's an old saying down in Texas....
Fool me once....... shame on..... shame on you.
Uh, fool me can't get fooled again.
-GWB
|
|
|
|
|
fear
May 13, 2007, 11:51 PM
Post #219 of 354
(18281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 475
|
boymeetsrock wrote: Regardless of the arguments above for personal responsibility (which I happen to agree with), it is time this was settled with a law suite...........
Bullfuckinshit.... The LAST thing we need is lawyers in this sport. It'd kill innovation and smaller companies in a heartbeat. Plus the larger companies would soon realize the liability created from manufacturing lightweight climbing gear sure as hell isn't worth the "profits". I'm sure BD makes MUCH more money on skis and apparel than cams.
CCH is making crap.... fair enough.... get the word out and the market will do the rest....
Do your part and spread the word...
-Fear
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 14, 2007, 12:56 AM
Post #220 of 354
(18244 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
fear wrote: boymeetsrock wrote: Regardless of the arguments above for personal responsibility (which I happen to agree with), it is time this was settled with a law suite........... Bullfuckinshit.... The LAST thing we need is lawyers in this sport. It'd kill innovation and smaller companies in a heartbeat. Plus the larger companies would soon realize the liability created from manufacturing lightweight climbing gear sure as hell isn't worth the "profits". I'm sure BD makes MUCH more money on skis and apparel than cams. CCH is making crap.... fair enough.... get the word out and the market will do the rest.... Do your part and spread the word... -Fear
on that note, here's an old riddle for y'all:
what have you got with a thousand lawyers buried up to their chins in sand?
not enough sand!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 14, 2007, 1:32 AM
Post #221 of 354
(18220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
fear wrote: boymeetsrock wrote: Regardless of the arguments above for personal responsibility (which I happen to agree with), it is time this was settled with a law suite........... Bullfuckinshit.... The LAST thing we need is lawyers in this sport.
Yeah, good thing there aren't any yet.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
waltereo
May 15, 2007, 1:47 AM
Post #222 of 354
(18051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 151
|
The cams that are marked "tensile tested" , is it just the cable that is tested or is it the whole cam, the lobes being inserted into a sort of crack ??
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 15, 2007, 1:54 AM
Post #223 of 354
(18044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
waltereo wrote: The cams that are marked "tensile tested" , is it just the cable that is tested or is it the whole cam, the lobes being inserted into a sort of crack ?? Thanks
it's been said but from what i understand:
new cams marked are tested after the heads are brazed onto the cables but before the lobes are attached.
cams sent in or brought in are tested in a jig with a "crack"
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 15, 2007, 4:15 AM
Post #224 of 354
(17991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
I don't see it mentioned if the cam was ever sent to CCH or to a metallurgist.
Posted March 12, 2007 on CCH Site:
Its been over a month since the Souders Crack incident. No report has been issued from a metallurgist that we are aware of. Only analysis of the piece by a lab can begin to answer all the questions and speculation that exist, we hope a report will be issued soon.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 15, 2007, 5:01 AM
Post #225 of 354
(17976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
This does bother me somewhat about the incident. I truly wonder why no information has come forward about it. I know pinsandbones should be resting and everything, but I would think at some point someone would come forward with the information. It makes me wonder if pinsandbones does have lawyer stuff going on, which would inevitably delay public knowledge on the incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
