|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jun 20, 2007, 8:15 PM
Post #76 of 170
(9279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
curt wrote: dingus wrote: Yall make noises like Yvon Chouinard never got sued and had to divest himself of Black Diamond or risk losing his empire. But other than that yall damn sure make a lot of knowledgable noises! Very impressive. DMT I think we were discussing the relative merits of an action against CCH, as opposed to whether or not anyone can sue anyone else for any reason whatsoever. Clearly, the latter is well established. Curt
I am hesitant to step into this swamp of misinformation. But, I include the above quotes because Curt's comments are correct and on the point. Dingus' demonstrate the commonly held misunderstanding of the actual dynamic of what transpired with Chouinard Equipment (and how the current CCH problem is significantly different).
I have served as defense counsel in climbing related products liability cases, including one involving Chouinard Equipment (I represented a retailer).
Any case against CCH would involve not only theories of negligence, but those of products liablility (which include strict liability for defective products sold to the public).
While it is unfortunate that legal action may be taken against CCH (and without a doubt against the retailers who happen to sell the cams in question), it would appear a case against CHH would be premised on failures of cams during normal use and lack of proper Quality Control.
While it is true that climbing is dangerous, most climbers take great pains to mitigate that risk. One of the best means of moderating risk of death or injury in a fall is to use protection and a rope. Protection and ropes are specialized climbing tools, without which most of the readers of this thread would not even participate in climbing.
These tools require proper training to use correctly and misuse can -- in certain circumstances -- be a defense to a products liability lawsuit. But when used correctly, within the prescribed perameters of its design, there is little legal excuse for it to fail.
Unfortunately, the ramifications of litigation over CCH cams extend further than just CCH. Retailers who sold the cams are also liable. The result will mean that smaller or start up climbing companies will find entry to the retail market more difficult and more expensive. On the other hand, perhaps the stringent manufacturing and quality control standards seen in companies such as Black Diamond will become so universal that we all will benefit from better and more reliable equipment.
(This post was edited by fredbob on Jun 20, 2007, 8:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Jun 20, 2007, 8:20 PM
Post #77 of 170
(9273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
robdotcalm wrote: yeckcir wrote: «I'll be god damned if I'm gonna have to carry personal liability insurance to belay my friends, or get signed waivers if someone is going to climb on my rope and fall on my green alien.» I have a personal-liability, umbrella policy on top of my home and car insurance that does indeed cover me if I’m sued by somebody who was climbing with me or beneath me or whatever. A climbing partner might not sue you, but one of their relatives might if the partner was injured or killed. The main point of the umbrella policy was to provide extra protection in general. It so happens that it covers climbing (which is nice). Gratias et valete bene! RobertusPunctumPacificus
This is a good point. And i'll add to it that such insurance is a good thing to have. Lets say your best frind of 20 years dies on the other end of your rope. His wife and kids are left pennyless... Insureance has come into good use for many people in situations such as this.
kind of a lame example but... Think of it as a sort of life insurance for others. And protects your assets at the same time.
Not that I'm looking to run out and by climbing insurance, but it's something to consider for those of you married with families and businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 20, 2007, 8:34 PM
Post #78 of 170
(9251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
ja1484 wrote: papounet wrote: Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. Remember getting double 6 with 2 dices is 1/36 probability. You can roll the dices 36 times and have them come up , on the first roll on the last roll , or at any other time (and even multiples times) or even not at all This is more or less what I was getting at with my "Why not the 1st or 7th cam" comment in my previous post. Jay may argue that pure numbers not applied is pointless, and I'd agree with him there, but the pure math simply states that eventually, a cam failure exists. Run for the...er, away from the hills!
For all means of sanity... what is the probability that more than one of these cam failures will happen AFTER they have been tensile tested to 2/3 of their stated strength?! 1x10^-19 is a freaking small number... but having that occur twice within a year?! Wake up and smell the coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
renneberg
Jun 20, 2007, 8:53 PM
Post #79 of 170
(9234 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 7
|
On Super Topo there are picture of 2 failed Aliens that are date stamped 0305.
They were pulled with a dynomometer and an electric winch... Failed at 1,100 and 1,200 pounds
The thread is ALIEN FAILURE 5/15/07
The pictures of the cams and testing were recently posted
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Jun 20, 2007, 9:14 PM
Post #80 of 170
(9210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
fredbob wrote: While it is unfortunate that legal action may be taken against CCH (and without a doubt against the retailers who happen to sell the cams in question), it would appear a case against CHH would be premised on failures of cams during normal use and lack of proper Quality Control.
Intersting post, fredbob.
One of the things that I've wondered about from a legal perspective has to do with the QA statement on their website before the dimple incident occured.
I'm aware of this statement b/c I received a cam that was misdrilled and therefore did not retract to the right size. I discovered this in a desperate position and have always felt like this was a bigger safety issue than they ever acknowledged. (These cams were not recalled.)
I tried to contact them about this issue and 1. the e-mail on their website didn't work and 2. I left a phone message that was never returned.
Back to the QA statment though...At that time they said that they were a small company who was able to ensure the quality of every peice of gear by making them 100% in house. Now, I understand that you could have yoru 2 year old brother make them all in house and it doesn't mean shizz. But what I wonder about from a legal point of view is that fact that this measure that was essentially their only assurance of quality was false...and that it was the outside contractor who messed up the dimpled units...and that they never tested these units that were braking under body weight to confirm that this work that was getting done outside of their crack QA system was getting done correctly. Are they additionally negligent for not following the QA that they advertized?
Another thing that I'm curious about is their responsability to look into the safety of their product after hearing unconfirmed reports of cam failure. They've said in response to various reports that they didn't take action b/c they didn't see the cam. s this a legal position for them to take?
They took this position after the first incident and then after the second incident when they made their famous "hoax" statement although mountaingear was able to quickly determine that there were a lot of crappy cams in the recent batch.
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Jun 20, 2007, 9:43 PM
Post #81 of 170
(9184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
I am upset in seeing litigation in climbing!
[Edited to save time for the readers]
(This post was edited by quiteatingmysteak on Jun 21, 2007, 7:17 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Jun 20, 2007, 10:09 PM
Post #82 of 170
(9158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
medicus wrote: ja1484 wrote: papounet wrote: Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. Remember getting double 6 with 2 dices is 1/36 probability. You can roll the dices 36 times and have them come up , on the first roll on the last roll , or at any other time (and even multiples times) or even not at all This is more or less what I was getting at with my "Why not the 1st or 7th cam" comment in my previous post. Jay may argue that pure numbers not applied is pointless, and I'd agree with him there, but the pure math simply states that eventually, a cam failure exists. Run for the...er, away from the hills! For all means of sanity... what is the probability that more than one of these cam failures will happen AFTER they have been tensile tested to 2/3 of their stated strength?! 1x10^-19 is a freaking small number... but having that occur twice within a year?! Wake up and smell the coffee.
Exactly my point: even if they sigma test, even if they tensile test... obviously their methods aren't reproducible, aren't reliable, and aren't consistent. That's a big problem for me. 1 failure I might give them a second shot... but crap... 5? 11? Wow, I just can't trust their stamp of "x lbs/F" anymore, can I? Obviously they can't manufacture the same way on a consistent basis. Bummer. I'd always heard that they rocked... now I don't even what to know if they do or not.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jun 20, 2007, 10:15 PM
Post #83 of 170
(9150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
ja1484 wrote: jt512 wrote: ja1484 wrote: jt512 wrote: papounet wrote: jt512 wrote: We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail. In reply to: If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed. Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed. Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use. Jay Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. No, please consider the magnitude of the number, which I have related to both the age of the Universe and the number of atoms in the Universe. This probability is incomprehensibly small. It is so small that we can say with virtual certainty that no event with that probability will occur on Earth during our lifetime. Jay Virtual certainty is a different thing from certainty last time I checked... It's really splitting hairs. You got somethin better to do on the internet? 
shop for books?
The_Black_Swan wrote: What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes. First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.
Of course, with their recent history over the past few years, perhaps our expectations of CCH increasing oversight of their QA processes have been misplaced.
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Jun 20, 2007, 10:24 PM
Post #84 of 170
(9142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
quiteatingmysteak wrote: To keep the lawyers, beuroucrats, fat public out of climbing we have to stop this bullshit. I don't care if johnny pull-hard can't walk for the rest of his life because he tried some death route and relied on a single peice of gear (if a ground fall meant a 2 million dollar payday ill start snapping mini wires tomorow), I would rather him take responsibility that climbing is dangerous than open the door for rats and finks who dont give a FUCK about climbing to shut our crags down, wal-mart our gear companies, make us sign wavers, and shut down every option so that we spend weekends in the gym, the only place left for our money to get into their pockets. It absolutely infuriates me that such idiotic things happen. You place your life in the hands of once peice of gear, you could die. PERIOD. The fucking rock could break off, THATS WHY CLIMBING IS REDUNDANT! I can't wait to see this shitstain go down the tubes and peter off into nothing, with the world still unknown to what most of us do. In the meanwhile i will be DAMNED if i ever climb on an Alien. The reprocussion of broken gear is in the form of product awareness and public scrutiny, not some punk getting a payday at our expense. that sounded angry. I'm really a nice guy and like long walks on the beach and holding hands 
I think you're overdue for a walk on the beach. :)
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jun 20, 2007, 10:57 PM
Post #85 of 170
(9108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
I knew responding to this thread would be futile and likely lost in noise of the plainly absurd rantings of the ignorant -- [iamthewallress I'm certainly not including you in that description.] But to address your somewhat rhetorical question:
Based upon my experience of representing businesses, it is a big mistake (and will eventually cause much greater harm) to take a position of denial and defensiveness.
If a company proclaims they have policies and procedures in effect which they do not, or they are taking remedial action (which they are not), at a minimum this will worsen any defense and at the worse expose them to potential further liability for those misrepresentations.
However, since I do not even remotely know all the facts in the matter of CCH, it would be pure speculation to give an opinion as to any case to be made against them.
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jun 20, 2007, 11:02 PM
Post #86 of 170
(9100 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
quiteatingmysteak wrote: To keep the lawyers, beuroucrats, fat public out of climbing we have to stop this bullshit. ... ...further misinformed and misleading ranting, not worth considering...
If you have no clue about what you are talking about, please confine such "stuff" to conservative talk shows or other venues where ignorance is prized.
None of the scenarios you [or "yeckcir"] propose have any relationship to -- or would result from -- the situation at hand.
(This post was edited by fredbob on Jun 20, 2007, 11:40 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
boku
Jun 20, 2007, 11:18 PM
Post #87 of 170
(9088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
fredbob wrote: quiteatingmysteak wrote: To keep the lawyers, beuroucrats, fat public out of climbing we have to stop this bullshit. ... Further misinformed and misleading ranting, not worth considering... If you have no clue about what you are talking about, please confine such "stuff" to conservative talk shows or other venues where ignorance is prized. None of the scenarios you propose have any relationship to -- or would result from -- the situation at hand.
Two things:
One, quiteatingmysteak did not write "Further misinformed and misleading ranting, not worth considering..." That was inserted in between the quote tags by fredbob in such a way as to make it look, intentionally or otherwise, like a direct quote. I consider that very bad form.
Two, suggestions by RC.com members that other RC.com members moderate their views and expressions almost always fall on deaf ears. Such suggestions do little except decrease the already-lean signal to noise ratio. Where a situation demands moderation, the actual moderators will almost always take care of it.
Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K.
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jun 20, 2007, 11:49 PM
Post #88 of 170
(9052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
Bob: Thanks for pointing out the unintended impression I was quoting the second bit -- though I don't think it mislead anyone. Still, I changed my format.
Yes, your other point is well taken -- which is why I rarely post to this Forum. The noise to content level is particularly high here, to the point of often defying comprehension.
But, if I feel like taking a particularly egregious example of noise to task, it is certainly my prerogative to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Jun 21, 2007, 12:03 AM
Post #89 of 170
(9037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
fredbob wrote: quiteatingmysteak wrote: To keep the lawyers, beuroucrats, fat public out of climbing we have to stop this bullshit. ... ...further misinformed and misleading ranting, not worth considering...If you have no clue about what you are talking about, please confine such "stuff" to conservative talk shows or other venues where ignorance is prized. None of the scenarios you [or "yeckcir"] propose have any relationship to -- or would result from -- the situation at hand.
First off, appearantly ranting is a republican thing to do, by your standards. Ouch!
Secondly, its a public forum. I think of this as more like a campfire scenario. Sure some people have taken classes about law, but fuck man, your talking to climbers!
Thirdly, I recall a scenario when a certain owner of Black Diamond sold his company because of complications. I may be wrong on the specifics, but I think you know where I'm going with this.
The only one to benefit from this lawsuit is the dickhead, the losers are going to be every company that creates rock pro and every climber who uses them, at the LEAST bit.
[edit - i appreciate that you read my post, and welcome criticism. I don't have deaf ears, but i stand by what i say!]
(This post was edited by quiteatingmysteak on Jun 21, 2007, 12:05 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 21, 2007, 12:20 AM
Post #90 of 170
(9020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
would it not benefit the climbing community to have CCH forced to make quality goods that aren't going to hurt climbers?
If the companies gear becomes a much higher quality product because of the lawsuit, or if faulty equipment is no longer sold, I'll consider myself a dickhead because I as sure as hell have benefited from a product that could have killed me becoming an actual life saving device.
In that regard, anyone who trad climbs is a dickhead, and anyone who knows of someone who trad climbs is a dickhead because all those involved with climbing would benefit from a better product.
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Jun 21, 2007, 12:31 AM
Post #91 of 170
(9012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
medicus wrote: would it not benefit the climbing community to have CCH forced to make quality goods that aren't going to hurt climbers? If the companies gear becomes a much higher quality product because of the lawsuit, or if faulty equipment is no longer sold, I'll consider myself a dickhead because I as sure as hell have benefited from a product that could have killed me becoming an actual life saving device. In that regard, anyone who trad climbs is a dickhead, and anyone who knows of someone who trad climbs is a dickhead because all those involved with climbing would benefit from a better product.
Again i would refer you to earlier posts -- CCH posted a recall, and I can only assume that the break has happened to recalled aliens. you can check the supertopo forum for actual stress tests if you want to know, but to be real honest some gear isn't good. A company with a bad reputation won't have dealers that sell their product, and the public won't be buying it. Holding people to standards by means of litigation is the wrong way about it in my opinion.
To help gather my broken sentances, ill present you with a scenario. Joe buys 3 cams from Black Diamond off of Ebay. The cams break, Joe is paralyzed. Who does Joe sue? We have no way to tell the origins of the Aliens as was read in the report posted. He may have found them on the ground for all we know, at the bottom of the Zodiac.
Just playing Devils advocate there, but you have to consider these things before weighing in whether something needs a lawyer to piss on everyones fun
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 21, 2007, 12:37 AM
Post #92 of 170
(9003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Have you seen the pictures for the Souder's Crack Groundfall? The cam does not appear to have been in horrible condition. The cam was not a recalled Alien. There have been numerous other alien cam issues NOT pertaining to recalled aliens. It was stamped later than the recall period, and it was one of the new aliens that does not have the metal sheath around the cable, so it must have been produced AFTER the recall.
Playing devil's advocate is one thing, but do so with better information. Assuming it was a recalled Alien is like assuming the guy didn't take a ground fall.
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Jun 21, 2007, 12:43 AM
Post #93 of 170
(8989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
taken from the OP's link, not my words
Looks like a law firm is starting to cast it's net out for anyone that may of been hurt using an alien recently.
Lawyer with Product Liability Experience for Mountain Climbing Accident Pritzker | Ruohonen & Associates, P.A., is a premier personal injury law firm with a national reputation for success in complex product liability cases. Over the years we have had several million-dollar recoveries, including a recent settlement for $3,750,000. (The result in this case was based on the facts. Although the facts of most cases do not support a million-dollar recovery, at Pritzker | Ruohonen we aggressively pursue every case.)
If you have been injured due to the failure of a mountain climbing camming anchor (alien cam), a lawyer at Pritzker | Ruohonen is available for a free consultation. You can reach a lawyer at our firm by calling toll-free at 1-888-377-8900 or by filling in our online consultation form.
Recall of CCH Inc. Mountain Climbing Camming Anchor
On April 18, 2006, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the recall of about 4,100 mountain climbing camming anchors manufactured by Colorado Custom Hardware (CCH) Inc., of Laramie, Wyoming. According to the CPSC, the cables supporting the CCH Inc. camming anchor can fail, causing climbers to fall. The description of the recalled camming anchor is as follows:
Description: These camming anchors or “Alien Cams” are devices used as both a precautionary measure to stop a climber in the event of falls, or it is used to actually support the climber. Climbers insert the device into cracks or crevasses in rock and it grips the sides of the crack. The recalled units are marked with a small center punch dimple at the base of the round ball where the axle goes through the cable eye. They have production dates, from November 2004 (written as 1104) through December 2005 (written as 1205), which can be found on the bottom of the handle puller. CCH Inc. has received a report of one failure that lead to an injury. The recall announcement urges consumers to stop using the CCH Inc. mountain climbing camming anchor immediately.
-------------
Nowhere do i see anything about the fall being AT Souders 
Maybe its the same guy, maybe it isn't. Like you said, until we know, its all speculation. If I have missed something feel free to point it out, but from what I am looking at, Pritzker | Ruohonen & Associates is looking for injuries from any alien injury, whether it be by failure, misuse or abuse of common sense (including using a recalled cam).
(This post was edited by quiteatingmysteak on Jun 21, 2007, 12:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 21, 2007, 12:51 AM
Post #94 of 170
(8971 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Regardless of if this attorney association is looking for these cases, my point is that you have said lawyers will do nothing but harm.
You also are saying you MUST assume that any failed alien was a recalled alien.
A lot of people think that there is a strong possibility it is pinsandbones who has opened a lawsuit against CCH due to his open communication then sudden silence followed by CCH being very obscure with information about the situation. Not to mention that the metallurgist that pinsandbones sent his cam to said he would not give a report explaining why the cam broke due to a conflict of interest since he works with CCH.
Regardless of if this is true or not, it is obvious that we must not assume any alien failure must be a recalled alien.
That alien is obviously not a recalled alien, and it failed. Assuming that no alien has failed that is not a recalled alien is severely misinformed.
Also, I think you have speculated on what Pritzker | Ruohonen & Associates is looking for. They merely give a number to call for a consultation. They could be looking for any injury, then farther investigating it to see why that alien failed to bring more evidence against CCH. They could be just trying to move into a class action lawsuit. They could not even be affiliated with any climber who has actually been hurt. To be so quick on saying that it is speculation that pinsandbones is involved in a lawsuit with CCH, or probably will be in the future, you have speculated on the intentions and the information that Pritzker | Ruohonen & Associates may be looking for.
That all being said, I think frivolous lawsuits would definitely hurt the community, but if CCH produced faulty equipment, lied about testing 100% of their gear, and pinsandbones got hurt because if it, I can see good coming out of a lawsuit. That good could in fact benefit ALL climbers, even if it knocks up prices a bit.
(This post was edited by medicus on Jun 21, 2007, 1:05 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Jun 21, 2007, 1:00 AM
Post #95 of 170
(8957 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
I did not say that every failed alien is one that should have been recalled : / if your going to say I said something, quote me right  !
I am saying that you can't tell the origins of them, how long they have been used, how many falls, if its been dropped, if it was placed correctly, etc etc etc. I agree with you that in all likelihood, it was pins. It really makes the most sense. Pritzker | Ruohonen & Associates is looking for ANYONE however.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 21, 2007, 1:07 AM
Post #96 of 170
(8952 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
quiteatingmysteak wrote: Again i would refer you to earlier posts -- CCH posted a recall, and I can only assume that the break has happened to recalled aliens.
(This post was edited by medicus on Jun 21, 2007, 1:09 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jun 21, 2007, 1:14 AM
Post #97 of 170
(8934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
ja1484 wrote: papounet wrote: Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. Remember getting double 6 with 2 dices is 1/36 probability. You can roll the dices 36 times and have them come up , on the first roll on the last roll , or at any other time (and even multiples times) or even not at all This is more or less what I was getting at with my "Why not the 1st or 7th cam" comment in my previous post. Jay may argue that pure numbers not applied is pointless, and I'd agree with him there, but the pure math simply states that eventually, a cam failure exists. Run for the...er, away from the hills!
{Math}
I wouldn't try to argue maths with people who know their numbers.
Sure your right there is a finite probability of it breaking. In the same way that there IS a finite quantum probability that all the particles in your body will the next second sepparate and rejoin together in China, thus teleporting you to China.
If 10,000,000 units are made then you are still talking about 1x10^-71 chance of any one unit failing in such a way. Those little exponential numbers are impossibly big(small), more than there are grains of sand on the earth.
However I don't know why I am arguing this because a normal distribution is NOT a good distribution for this sort of discussion. For starters it has infinite tails which obviously would behave well as breaking strength have a minimum of 0.
{/Math}
Statistics aside, climbing products must be held to standard. We as climbers know that if we start pushing the 3sigma ratings of gear then we deserve what we get. However we have good reason to demand a certainly level of quality and safety. CCH hasn't provided this.
Imagine if rope manufacturers had as poor quality control as CCH.
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jun 21, 2007, 1:36 AM
Post #98 of 170
(8915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
quiteatingmysteak wrote: I may be wrong on the specifics, but I think you know where I'm going with this.
Yes, you are wrong; both about the "specifics" and where you are going.
Shooting from the hip may work well around the "campfire," but when you express such strong "feelings" [I won't dignify them as opinions] in a written format for the entire world to see and debate, perhaps a bit of education about the facts would be prudent.
(This post was edited by fredbob on Jun 21, 2007, 1:38 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 21, 2007, 1:43 AM
Post #99 of 170
(8908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: However I don't know why I am arguing this because a normal distribution is NOT a good distribution for this sort of discussion. For starters it has infinite tails which obviously would behave well as breaking strength have a minimum of 0.
I think the normal distribution is still a viable model for the example being discussed. The hypothetical distribution had a mean of 11.5 and a std dev of 0.5. For all practical purposes, the whole normal distribution lies between -6 and +6 SDs. -6 SD in this case is 8.5 >> 0, the absolute limit of the breaking strength, so a normal distribution is still a viable model.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Jun 21, 2007, 2:21 AM
Post #100 of 170
(8882 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
I'm not a mathematician but the way I see it is that 1 cam breaking at a low threshold is a low probability. That one-in-a-gazillion can come up, unlikely but possible. But we're talking about 11 cams. It's not clear how many were post recall but at least 2-4 were. That's way too many. Blah Blah Blah we don't know all the circumstances.
SO WHAT !!!!
This is not an industry wide occurrence. It's not because climbing is dangerous. It's the failure to produce quality product.
As a manufacturer of machined product I can say that even a company with n-sigma QC can fuck it all up. A shop is only as good as the people who work there. The guy milling the lobes, grinding the axles, brazing the cables may not be the most reliable worker. For whatever reason people fuck up. It's what they do after that that's important. Do they report it to the foreman or QC guy, or do they try to hide their mistake.
The QC department finds a batch where a cam is defective. What do they do? Test another batch 'till they find one with no rejects.
I'm not saying that CCH is doing this or not. It is clear that there is a big problem with the manufacturing and the QC.
Do they deserve to get sued? As a climber I wouldn't like to see it but I haven't been beaten up by one of their products.
As climbers we should avoid buying any of their products. That may be the best that we could do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
