|
healyje
May 15, 2007, 8:41 AM
Post #226 of 354
(16254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
psprings wrote: 1. This failure scares me; and not just for CCH. It makes me worried about brazing, which includes Metolius ultralights. Fortunately I have more confidence in metolius' testing, but brazing... it's a chemical process and a metal bond, and how the cable is positioned in the receiver [hopefully fully, as has been stated]. Does the brazing process worry anyone else other than me after this?
I'd say you're getting a bit irrational at this point - brazing is not the problem - it's the lack of an effective quality process that is the problem. Ditto for swaged and sewn gear - all such gear needs to be produced within the context of a formal quality process and protocol which will catch bad gear and manufacturing problems.
|
|
|
|
|
soillclimber
May 15, 2007, 1:00 PM
Post #227 of 354
(16200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 31
|
I know that pins attempted to send the cam to the metallurgist that CCH recommended and they said that they could not test the cam due to conflict of interest. He is now also in the midst of finals and moving back to Yosemite. He just wanted to get the pics out, so others would know that something was going on with post recall Aliens too. I for one don't need a metallurgist to tell me that cam was a piece of crap and failed far before it should have. It'd be nice to have those kinds of facts, but it will just be a quantitative analysis of what the pics already tell me...crap piece of gear that was not made right somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 15, 2007, 1:39 PM
Post #228 of 354
(16168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
wideguy wrote: 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?
With respect to pinsandbones, yes. The above is exact lesson I learned from the first Alien debacle, and I'm ashamed I never learned it before. Some way or another, I've loaded every one of my cams since then. And I really ought to get my thumb out of my ass and do the same with my stoppers and sport draws, too.
The bottom line is that we choose to climb. It is not an imperative in anybody's life, like, say, eating and sleeping. This simple fact places the responsibility squarely on us as individuals. No matter what the courts say and no matter what the gear companies do to control quality, it cannot be any other way. Hell, I don't want it to be any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
May 15, 2007, 1:56 PM
Post #229 of 354
(16131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
soillclimber wrote: I know that pins attempted to send the cam to the metallurgist that CCH recommended and they said that they could not test the cam due to conflict of interest. He is now also in the midst of finals and moving back to Yosemite. He just wanted to get the pics out, so others would know that something was going on with post recall Aliens too. I for one don't need a metallurgist to tell me that cam was a piece of crap and failed far before it should have. It'd be nice to have those kinds of facts, but it will just be a quantitative analysis of what the pics already tell me...crap piece of gear that was not made right somehow.
Well, I'd like to know more than see a few pictures, as I'm sure others would. They may not tell the whole story, or be misleading. Everyone was happy with Metolius's response to the TCU failure gramps linked a few pages back. Cam broke, and after testing they determined that the fall, which everyone assumed was low fall factor, actually was a high fall factor and generated more force than the cam was rated for. Maybe that happened here, who knows? And the recent link cam probkem? What if that guy hadn't been willing to let testing occur? OP wouldn't have been able to actually address the failure as well, but everyone seems more than happy to run out and load up on link cams now.
Yes CCH has been shady, but withholding information on your part does a disservice to the climbing community. Send the cam for testing. The rope too. How many big falls has it taken and how old is it? Lots of info would be needed to determine what really happened, and I don't see why you wouldn't want to get this info out for other climbers...
(This post was edited by mojomonkey on May 15, 2007, 1:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 15, 2007, 5:15 PM
Post #230 of 354
(16051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
Hi soilclimber,
I'm sure people can sympathize with pinsandbones in the midst of school and recovering from a traumatic injury. And far be it for me to pass judgment on anyone (lest ye be judged thyself.) So this might sound a bit harsh, but it needs to be said.
Until CCH gets the cam or an independent 3rd party does an analysis, CCH can not take proactive steps to correct the problem (if there is one) or get similarly faulty units off the market. This means that other climbers are at risk being of being injured or even killed.
Sure, people can place blame with "idiot climbers who are stupid enough to use Aliens," but not everyone reads rockclimbing.com. And if that argument holds any water, then one should ask why pinsandbones was using a suspect manufacturer's cam as well. After all, there's been plenty of "issues" noted on this forum and elsewhere concerning CCH to make one wary even before this incident.
Everyone loves to hate the bad guy, and CCH is currently the devil - perhaps deservingly, perhaps not. But, one can't blame them for the stance they've taken. The internet is full of deception and this could simply be an elaborate hoax. (I personally believe otherwise, but that's not the point.)
Lawyers involved in a potentially high damage negligence suit don't give a damn about public interest (yes I'm inferring this might be what's going on, but how would I know one way or the other?) So if indeed pinsandbones is holding out for personal gain at the expense of the public interest, than I would urge you to question his motives and to have him also consider personal responsibility as a factor in this horrible accident.
We all expect our gear to work when needed, but we all take a risk everytime we plug a piece. Leaders climbing trad at the level of pinsandbones know (or should know) that gear can fail for any number of reasons. When choosing to climb any route that is notoriously hard to protect, the climber makes a choice to take a risk of injury or even death. Nobody wants to think about it that way, but that's the simple fact.
If none of this applies, than ignore what I've said! I know as little about this incident as anyone else out there lacking first hand knowledge and making assumptions about the "facts." Perhaps being a hopeless romantic I just like to think of the world as a different place than it is, but I would simply hope that someone who has been a victim would feel a certain responsibility to prevent further injury within the climbing community. My personal opinion (which may not be worth squat) would be to leave the lawyers out of it.
Sorry if this turned into a rant. My intent is not to pass judgement on anyone, just to provide additional food for thought.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 15, 2007, 5:34 PM
Post #231 of 354
(16014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bspisak wrote: Leaders climbing trad at the level of pinsandbones know (or should know) that gear can fail for any number of reasons.
I guess that is new n00b philosophy. I must be crazy because I expect a piece of gear that is rated to (say) 1200 pounds, to hold 1200 fucking pounds.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
May 15, 2007, 5:49 PM
Post #232 of 354
(15993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
As far a laywers are concerned it is time precedent was set. These companies are making money off of this gear. Gear that we are paying good money for, BECAUSE we are told it will perform to cetain constraints. When a mass produced product causes injury due to failure within the acceptable constraints, then the company should not be profiting any more.
This whole scene with CCH is almost three years old now.?!
If this were hugh banner sending nuts out from his garage, with the disclaimer "I made these in my garage" then it would be each individuals responsibility to test the gear and use at their own risk. But, this is a major company, proffiting thousands off of gear that does not meet the qualifications they have implemented themselves.
I have no remorse for CCH or climing as a whole, if we are going to support companies like this. If they say their gear will work to xKN then it F'ing better barring some extreme circumstances.
-Boy
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
May 15, 2007, 5:50 PM
Post #233 of 354
(15989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
jt512 wrote: bspisak wrote: Leaders climbing trad at the level of pinsandbones know (or should know) that gear can fail for any number of reasons. I guess that is new n00b philosophy. I must be crazy because I expect a piece of gear that is rated to (say) 1200 pounds, to hold 1200 fucking pounds. Jay
Exactly Jay.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
May 15, 2007, 5:50 PM
Post #234 of 354
(15988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
j_ung wrote: With respect to pinsandbones, yes. The above is exact lesson I learned from the first Alien debacle, and I'm ashamed I never learned it before.
But see, that's my point. Prior to the first Alien recall, I don't think MOST people, (not saying you personally, because I don't know) would have thought twice about placing a brand new Alien fresh from the store. Hell, all people talk about is "Gotta go scratch up this shiny new gear."
And even after the recall there have been dozens of people still singing CCH's praises. "Just make sure yours says "tensile tested and you're good to go." Well his did say "Tensile tested" (which NOW appears to be absolute bullshit,) and I don't think it's totally fair to lash Pinsandbones for trusting that to some extent. Here he is, and he's not even close to alone, thinking "well sure they had issues, but now they're aware and taking steps to correct it. And it says right on here that mine was tested, so I KNOW this braze is good."
I realize it's really two different arguments. First, yes, it is ultimately our responsibility to protect ourselves. Climb within our limits, place good, and possibly frequent, gear, choose good partners.
But that should never, IMHO, leave manufacturers off the hook to produce quality gear that performs as advertised.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
May 15, 2007, 5:53 PM
Post #235 of 354
(15983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
But that should never, IMHO, leave manufacturers off the hook to produce gear that DOES NOT performs as advertised.
Again - Exactly! Why do we not all agree in chorus on this????????????????
(Edit cause wideguy either wrote this wrong or I read it wrong)
(This post was edited by boymeetsrock on May 15, 2007, 5:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
May 15, 2007, 6:30 PM
Post #236 of 354
(15923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
Okay, I've been following this thread and here are my thoughts:
As a leader I don't like to have only one peice between me and the ground, ledge etc, and I will do my best to avoid that. Also as a leader I am aware that this isn't always possible, sometimes the gear is scarce or its actually more dangerous to hang out and place more gear than to just keep climbing (avoiding getting pumped and falling).
Now in any other buisness failure such as this is unaccecptable for a product. Consumers buy a product with the expectation that it will work. There are high standards in most manufacturing plants, and the standards are even higher if you're producing safety devices.
I could only imagine handing a lanyard to a tradesman, them falling and having it fail. Completly unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
May 15, 2007, 6:44 PM
Post #238 of 354
(15897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Why shouldn't we leave manufacturers off the hook to preovide QUALITLY GEAR THAT WORKS?
I think they should be free to sell quality gear that works.
However WE SHOULD NOT LEAVE MANNUFACTURER'S OFF THE HOOK TO PROVIDE GEAR THEY SAY IS QUALITY, BUT DOESN"T WORK.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
May 15, 2007, 6:47 PM
Post #239 of 354
(15889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
I'm digressing, and I'm not trying to argue with you wideguy.
It just frustates me that climbers are willing to allow their gear manufaturers to put gear on the market ad hoc with out guality testing, and strict responsibility for their product.
These cams were not failing under extremem circumstances, but rather in the coarse of proper use.
That is my concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
binrat
May 15, 2007, 6:48 PM
Post #240 of 354
(15883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155
|
G.G. Totally agree.
Binrat
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 15, 2007, 7:43 PM
Post #241 of 354
(15847 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
jt512 wrote: bspisak wrote: Leaders climbing trad at the level of pinsandbones know (or should know) that gear can fail for any number of reasons. I guess that is new n00b philosophy. I must be crazy because I expect a piece of gear that is rated to (say) 1200 pounds, to hold 1200 fucking pounds. Jay
I hear ya, and I totally agree that we need to hold manufacturers responsible. And that's why it's important to get the failed cams analyzed correctly. Pictures won't do it. Opinions aren't good enough. Perhaps you're correct and CCH are a bunch of bozos, and if that's the case, they need to be hung out to dry. So maybe it is time for the lawyers.
Btw, I would consider my opinion more of an old school philosophy as opposed to a noob. I started climbing when rigid stem friends were the only thing out there and I graduated from EB's climbing the hard cracks in Yosemite.
Trusting your life to a single piece happens. I've been so far above rusty bolts on sketchy ground that I knew I was dead if I fell. That's the spice of life and I crave it like no other. But, I enter into that realm fully aware and eyes open to the possibilities.
If I wanted to be 100% sure of not getting hurt, I wouldn't climb! To keep it in the 90's, don't trust any single piece of gear. Anything can happen. Biners can rattle open, slings can abrade, rock can fail... you name it. There are times you can only get one piece in. Maybe it's a suspect Alien. Be smart, and keep in mind the consequences. Come down if the risk is not to your liking.
Be safe, have fun, and get rid of your Aliens if you don't trust them.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
soillclimber
May 16, 2007, 1:50 AM
Post #242 of 354
(15762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 31
|
Mojo,
i think you misunderstood...pins is trying to send it in. It was the company recommended by CCH that said they could not do it because of conflict of interest. But, I do know that pins was using a Beal (still one of the lowest impact forces of any rope available) and was 60+ feet up. Having taken hundreds of falls, I find it hard to believe that he generated enough force to break a friggin cam. I find it more likely that the flake would have broke first. Sure that is just my thought, but enough force to break a cam would be crazy that far out on a rope....unless he was using a static...nope he wasn't. Those pics were posted exactly to get the info out to other climbers. And any info that is gained after the testing is done will be passed along too.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
May 16, 2007, 1:55 AM
Post #243 of 354
(15761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
I guess you were right, stoppers will save this sport.
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 16, 2007, 2:06 AM
Post #244 of 354
(15751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
I'm sure CCH could recommend an alternative metallurgist. Sounds like the one they suggest is worried about a law suit since they probably signed off on the fix after the recall. (You can see part of their report on the CCH website.)
A quick email to CCH to request an alternative would get things moving pretty quick.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 18, 2007, 7:54 PM
Post #246 of 354
(15460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
bspisak wrote: Everyone loves to hate the bad guy, and CCH is currently the devil - perhaps deservingly, perhaps not. But, one can't blame them for the stance they've taken. The internet is full of deception and this could simply be an elaborate hoax. (I personally believe otherwise, but that's not the point.) ... Sorry if this turned into a rant. My intent is not to pass judgement on anyone, just to provide additional food for thought. Brian
Brian, we are a year past such a meal...
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
May 18, 2007, 8:09 PM
Post #247 of 354
(15438 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
It seems to me that a lot of the disagreement over whether manufacturers should (or should not) be held liable for defective gear is based on a failure to differentiate between various types of risks, and how the law sees your behavior in relation to those risks.
Specifically: when you climb, you are deemed to have consented to certain inherent and/or unavoidable risks in the sport. You accept the risk that the rock may break; that a piece of protection may not be as good as you thought; that a rock might fall out of the sky; that your foot might slip off; etc. Some of these risks fall into what our dear departed Sec of Def. might characterize as "known unknowns"; we don't know exactly what some of these risks might be, but we know they're out there, and can't be avoided if we indulge in the sport. We are therefore deemed to have consented to these "known unknowns" as well.
It's basically very similar to the doctrine of "informed consent" in medical malpractice cases: if the doctor properly warns you of what the risks are, you are barred from suing him/her if you decide to consent to the operation after that disclosure and are injured.
But you are entitled to rely on his/her adherence to a certain reasonable standard of care. A drunken or careless doctor whose hand slips and slices your jugular has not met that standard of care, and is liable for your injuries. And the fact that lawyers sue doctors for such alleged negligence (whether or not the doctor has actually done anything wrong) does a lot to protect all of us from the careless or inattentive idiots who would otherwise be (mal)practicing medicine on all of us. Yes, it raises the cost of medical care in general, but you get what you pay for.
Similarly, although there are a lot of risks we cannot avoid (and choose to accept) when climbing, the risk that a well-placed piece (for which good money has been paid) will simply fall apart at far below its rated strength is not one of them. Accordingly, manufacturers whose gear fails to meet the advertised specifications are -- and should be -- liable for it; you did not consent to that risk when you bought the cam.
Of course, when you sue the manufacturer because the one piece you placed for thirty feet fails, the manufacture can, and will, argue that you contributed to the accident by failing to place other pieces where available, or by choosing to continue even though no other placements were available. It's then up to the jury to apportion responsibility between you and CCH.
A lot of people don't like and/or understand this system, but I would suggest that for all its faults, it works fairly well most of the time: we're still climbing, manufacturers are still making gear, and the vast majority of it is highly reliable. Don't be too quick to assume that a different system would be better.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 18, 2007, 8:24 PM
Post #248 of 354
(15413 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I think we come back round now to Gabe's argument. Figuring out who is responsible for gear failure in a court of law is all well and good, but on the crag, what difference does it make? None.
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 18, 2007, 8:31 PM
Post #249 of 354
(15401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
healyje wrote: Brian, we are a year past such a meal...
How much rope was out when the leader fell?
How far above the alien was he?
How far off the ground was the alien placed?
What other pieces of gear were there and how were they placed?
What type of bely device was being used?
What make was the rope?
How old was the rope?
How many falls had it taken?
What other relavent history?
How old was the cam?
How many other falls had it taken?
All this data needs to be collected to come up with a clear picture of how much force was actually imparted to the cam in question. The cam should go to a metallurgist. Anything else is speculation.
-
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 18, 2007, 8:33 PM
Post #250 of 354
(15392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Yup
And alot of us believe that CCH has not abided by the "standard of care" when their cams blow apart well below their described strength.
How would someone in a medical setting react if someone got their hip replaced and the second they tried to walk on it the rod snapped and the patient fell and hurt themselves? They would get sued up the ass for sure.
There are tons of routes that can only fit certain pieces and there might be a run out to and from them.. what about a finger crack that only takes yellow aliens.. what do you say to the person that gets so unlucky that they pop the whole string of them (unlikely to have all bad but it could happen) so no matter how much they sewed it up it was the gear that failed under the posted rating
oh dear.. WARNING: CCH seems to be passing out that *special* kool-aid again.. (see above)
(This post was edited by jakedatc on May 18, 2007, 8:37 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
