|
shimanilami
Jun 21, 2007, 6:35 PM
Post #126 of 170
(4463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
You cannot build quality into a manufacturing process through QC testing. QC testing simply screens for processes which are out of control. All this talk about CCH's poor QC betrays a lack of understanding of good manufacturing practices.
QC is not CCH's problem. The problem is in their manufacturing process, which should be fairly straightforward and easy to control. The root source of these particular failures, I would venture, is an operator at CCH who fucks it up, and way too often considering the hazards associated with out-of-spec product. It seems obvious - to me, at least - that the guy who does the brazing needs to be retrained or fired.
If CCH has implemented these or other corrective actions, then the problem should be solved. Further, there is little chance that a lawsuit would be successful.
|
|
|
|
|
boku
Jun 21, 2007, 7:22 PM
Post #127 of 170
(4431 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
medicus wrote: ...because they are incompetent, which is what you previously disagreed with...
I don't recall where I've expressed either agreement or disagreement with that sentiment. Please refresh my memory with a cite.
Edit add: I just searched through my posts several different ways, and can find no such expression either agreeing nor disagreeing. Medicus, are you perhaps thinking of someone else?
Not that I don't have an opinion on the matter, just that I don't think I've put it in writing.
Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K.
(This post was edited by boku on Jun 21, 2007, 7:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 21, 2007, 7:34 PM
Post #128 of 170
(4421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
boku wrote: j_ung wrote: ...The simple truth is that Aliens are suspect unless tested individually, in controlled circumstances, in a drop tower, by somebody more competent than CCH... I disagree with that in a minor way: From the failure modes so far observed, I believe that the dynamic properties of the device are not in question. I believe that static testing should be adequate to tell good Aliens from bad ones. If the problems related to fatigue failures or to cam lobes slipping or skipping or other jitters, then I'd agree that dynamic testing is called for. But so far all of the known failures seem to relate to simple overload of either the cable-to-head joint or the stem loop swage. That being the case, I don't think that a slow controlled pull will show any different result than a fast dynamic pull. I think that all that matters here is the maximum tension applied to the stem. Which of course raises the question, why couldn't the static testing done by CCH tell them apart? Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for that, only speculation. And there's been plenty of that already. Bob "BoKu" K.
I was all set to concede the point, when it occurred to me that, a year from now, we might have heard of yet more problems with Aliens. When a company has so little control over what it sells, who knows what we'll see next? So, in the interest of safeguarding against failure modes that have yet to rear their ugly little heads, I'll stick with a test that most closely resembles what we're going to do to the gear.
(This post was edited by j_ung on Jun 21, 2007, 7:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 21, 2007, 7:34 PM
Post #129 of 170
(4420 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
shimanilami wrote: If CCH has implemented these or other corrective actions, then the problem should be solved. Further, there is little chance that a lawsuit would be successful.
I've been confused from the start about why everybody thinks that a successful suit would require demonstrating negligence by CCH. I'm not a lawyer, but this would be a product liability case, and so I would think that strict liability would apply. If the injured party can show that the product was defective, then CCH should be liable.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 21, 2007, 7:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
highangle
Jun 21, 2007, 7:38 PM
Post #130 of 170
(4410 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 151
|
medicus wrote: because they...? Lol did you get sidetracked there?
That's what I get for letting WORK interfere with this pressing issue!!!! 
(This post was edited by highangle on Jun 21, 2007, 7:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 21, 2007, 7:38 PM
Post #131 of 170
(4409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
"The simple truth is that Aliens are suspect unless tested individually, in controlled circumstances, in a drop tower, by somebody more competent than CCH...."
Sorry if I misunderstood... with the argument you presented after you quoted that, I was under the impression that you were stating that you disagreed that CCH was incompetent, because you thought that their static testing was sufficient even though the dynamic testing is a bit better...
It was just a misunderstanding on my part Boku... I probably read something of someone else's then yours and thought it was all the same post or something.
Sorry.
(This post was edited by medicus on Jun 21, 2007, 7:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 21, 2007, 7:48 PM
Post #132 of 170
(4393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Lol, well I started laughing because I did a similar thing last night. I thought it was pretty funny.
|
|
|
|
|
boku
Jun 21, 2007, 8:02 PM
Post #133 of 170
(4380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
medicus wrote: "The simple truth is that Aliens are suspect unless tested individually, in controlled circumstances, in a drop tower, by somebody more competent than CCH...." Sorry if I misunderstood... with the argument you presented after you quoted that, I was under the impression that you were stating that you disagreed that CCH was incompetent, because you thought that their static testing was sufficient even though the dynamic testing is a bit better...
Ah, I see. The only part of that I was disagreeing with was the clause about needing a drop tower.
To clarify: I believe that simple static testing, of every single unit, to some substantial percentage of rated load, should be adequate to tell good units from bad ones.
J_ung thinks that dynamic testing is required, and I respect his disagreement. However, dynamic testing is a lot harder to do consistently and repeatably. So I tend to think of it as a good tool for R&D but just not feasable for every unit. But history may well prove j_ung more correct than I in this.
As to why CCH's static testing of every braze has not caught the bad units, that is the real mystery in my mind. It may well be that institutional incompetence is to blame. It might be that there are "leaks" between their processes that allow untested stems to hit the street. It may be that their static tests are invalid due to a mis-calibrated tool. It may be that their test is to a tension not high enough to reveal faulty brazes. And it may be that the test itself weakens the braze (which I doubt). And, of course, it may be something else entirely.
I think that if it was my product, the stem would be designed to hold about 150% of rated load. That might add a few grams, but extra weight is the unavoidable cost of extra reliability. Also, I'd be pulling each finished stem to 100% rating, and pulling every finished cam to somewhere between 25% and 75% of rating.
Thanks, Bob K.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 21, 2007, 8:17 PM
Post #134 of 170
(4366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't fully sure this was the argument even after re-reading both of your posts. I blame it on my horrible sleeping schedule. 
Oh well... time is really the only thing that will tell us anything in the whole legal situation if it even exists.
|
|
|
|
|
sky7high
Jun 21, 2007, 8:39 PM
Post #135 of 170
(4348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 478
|
about the access argument, I only posted it as an example, I wasn't refering to problems as in "you're going to jail" I was thinking of the landowner getting bothered by legal procedures involving their land. anyway, want a real example of possible lawsuits harming climbing? here's one: something like 8 months ago, I went with two friends and the climbing coach from my highschool to do some nice crack climbing, it was all going great 'till one friend chopped his finger off. How you ask? it wasn't the finger-through-bolt, but rather that he was idiotically playing with a knife on a wet, slanted, flat, incredibly slippery rock. Pretty stupid huh? well he fell and the pocket knife opened in mid air, allowing his finger to come through, and then closed violently when it landed on the rock. luckily, we had a first aid kit and some bandages and were able to treat the injury until we got to the hospital. after some surgery (the insurance paid for it) my friend was okay, but our school prohibited us from going climbing with our coach, or else he lost his job. Why? FEAR OF LAWSUITS. and the trip wasn't even official.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 21, 2007, 8:46 PM
Post #136 of 170
(4345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
You have given 1 example of a potential lawsuit that would have been frivolous. That does not mean every lawsuit is frivolous and that every lawsuit will hurt the climbing community in a more negative way than the benefit it could give. If I have to pay $5 more per cam I buy, but that saved a person from taking a ground fall and permanently injuring themselves or killing themselves, I'd be willing to do so. Maybe I value life too much.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Jun 21, 2007, 9:09 PM
Post #137 of 170
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
By the time this thread reaches 500 posts, people will be talking about how this is both a criminal and a capital case.
5 minutes ago in another thread, fulton wrote: core wrote: I will gladly accept your Aliens Core That's like asking for syphilis
Buy Metolius and move on
--(yo Metolius, send me some free gear for all the shout outs)
|
|
|
|
|
sky7high
Jun 21, 2007, 9:29 PM
Post #138 of 170
(4310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 478
|
medicus wrote: Maybe I value life too much.
yeah, maybe you do. ya know, if judged by our raw materials, a person is only like $2.50 or so, and I honestly cant think of anyone that thinks the "manufacturing process" is hard work, and it doesn't precisely require years of study 
On a more serious note, however, I do buy expensive cams because I feel they are safer, however I would hate to see the price go up on metolius or bd cams just because they now need better insurance against lawsuits. This increase of price does absolutely nothing to increase the safety of these cams, but rather increases the security of the company's money
|
|
|
|
|
alexmac
Jun 21, 2007, 11:56 PM
Post #139 of 170
(4256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 550
|
ja1484 wrote: Recall all that liability speak included in the documentation with any climbing equipment, talking about how risks can never be eliminated, you climb at your own risk, consequences of climbing include injury or death, etc.? Yeah. Good luck to the law firm that goes after a gear company..
You can put whatever you want on a waiver, have the person sign in blood even. Heck if posted noticed worked and waivers worked: firestone and climbing gyms would not need to worry about legal action and carry insurance.
Hey good one, "driving is dangerous do so at your own risk, xxxx number of people are killed every year, you do so at your own risk and waive any right to sue."
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jun 21, 2007, 11:59 PM
Post #140 of 170
(4254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
highangle wrote: A suit should bring much greater publicity to the faulty aliens and protect the unknowing climber that still thinks his dimpled aliens are bomber.
there.
sadly enough, this edit would ring more true to my ears.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Jun 22, 2007, 3:13 PM
Post #141 of 170
(4204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
bent_gate wrote: One complaint I have of the legal system is that a jury is supposed to be composed of a jury of peers. So a jury in this case should be composed of climbers, and ideally climbers who also have manufacturing experience. Of course we know none of this will happen.
Actually, since the gear manufacturer would be getting sued, the jury would be made up of gear manufacturing executives and major shareholders. For whose side do you think they will be creating precedent?
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Jun 22, 2007, 3:33 PM
Post #142 of 170
(4186 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
I've only read about half of this thread, but have come to the conclusion that there are alot of people in here that don't know shit about tort law or law in general. Any lawsuit that arises from this will have nothing to do with negligence. It will be a products liability case. It matters not whether CCH knew or should have known their product didn't work properly. The only thing that matters is they manufactured a defective product, someone who reasonably would have been expected to use that product used it according to its intended purpose, the product failed to work properly because it was defective, and the person was injured. That's it. End of story.
Products liability law exists to create the incentive not to produce a defective product, which as a result of such defect, could reasonably be expected to cause harm to the end user.
Now, here is the kicker is products liability law. Not only is the manufacturer liable for manufacturing a defective product, but so to is REI or MGear or whoever the retailer was just for selling the defective product. It does not matter if the retailer knew or should have know it was defective. That is why REI and MGear yanked the shitty gear off their shelves the minute they found out it was defective. Paul Fish is not a dummy.
And for everyone criticizing lawyers, think about this. Laywers are people just like you trying to make a living and feed their families. It is the society that seeks to avoid any and all personal liability for their actions that seek out attorneys as their hired guns. That is all lawyers are; hired guns that know the legal system and how to exist within it. The guy advertising for anyone injured is just trying to feed his family. He knows of CCH's defective product and has come up with a marketing strategy to become a part of it. If no one approaches him, he'll find some other way to feed his family. The only way CCH gets sued is if someone who was injured by their defective products retains a hired gun to help them recover damages. The lawyer is not to blame. He is only a cog in a greater process.
Edited to add: This is not legal advice. You are not my client. Do not rely on anything I've said. If you do, you're an idiot. Get your own damn attorney and pay him the money he earns so he can pay his mortgage and by formula for his baby.
(This post was edited by wjca on Jun 22, 2007, 3:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jun 22, 2007, 3:52 PM
Post #143 of 170
(4166 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
wjca wrote: He is only a cog in a greater process.
It was not me, it was mein fuhrer! I only shot them in the head, ok?
Yes, I know, Hitler arguments are pretty lame. And I'm married to a lawyer, so it's pretty hypocritical of me to boot.
There's an allure to the adventure climbing past Dingus refers to (when gear wasn't certified, presumably), but I'd also like equipment that does most of what it advertises (yay, homogenization). Seems fair to me. I'll leave the law school jibber-jabber to you jibber-jabberers. Farbeit an ignorant pleb add more fuel to the vitriole.
|
|
|
|
|
automated
Jun 22, 2007, 4:36 PM
Post #145 of 170
(4131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2006
Posts: 16
|
cracklover wrote: yekcir wrote: If you can't take responsibility for your own actions and the consequences of doing something that is "inherently dangerous", and you can't accept the fact that lightning can and will strike, no matter how "safe" you feel, then go find another sport, like golf. Don't ruin climbing for me. AMEN! GO
AHEM! (From struckbylightning.org):
"'If you're out in the open on a golf course, you're kind of exposed,' said Brandon Wilkes, a meteorologist with Weather Decision Technologies. From 1995 to 2004, 20 golfers were killed by lightning nationwide, accounting for 5 percent of all lightning deaths."
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jun 22, 2007, 5:34 PM
Post #146 of 170
(4103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
wjca wrote: And for everyone criticizing lawyers, think about this. Laywers are people just like you trying to make a living and feed their families.
Yes, and is in every vocation, some are good, and some are bad.
In reply to: If no one approaches him, he'll find some other way to feed his family.
Not always true, we all know a few ambulance chasers.
In reply to: He is only a cog in a greater process.
Sometimes, and sometimes they are the cog. 90+% of our lawmakers are also lawyers.
Lawyers are many times a necessary evil created by a system created by them. Don't get me wrong, they are needed in our society and there are many with morals and ethics. The bad rap they get is brought on by a minority that exist within their association.
Forecast:
CCH will settle out of court.
CCH will be out of biz within a year.
The price of all climbing gear will go up.
The land of the irresponsible and self gratifying wussies will come full circle and bite its own self in the ass hard. Being unable to sue its own self, a vacuum will manifest and devour everything within the boundaries of its physical power. In the end, righting its own wrong.
(This may or may not coincide with global warming)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 22, 2007, 5:39 PM
Post #147 of 170
(4100 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
First of all, FredBob: Thanks very much for your participation in this thread. Glad you have a thick skin. Don't let the turkeys get you down.
Me, I've got nothing to say about the law in this (potential) case. Closest I've been to any of this was being the foreman on a weeklong personal injury trial. I.E. - enough to know to keep my trap shut and listen to those who actually have a clue.
What I want to say is in regards to personal responsibility and trad climbing. I absolutely agree that gear should work as advertised. But...
1 - CCH is a machine shop. They've got a great design, but that's all. They don't guarantee 3 sigma.
2 - Gear from any manufacturing company is sometimes faulty. Including companies that have excellent quality control and 3-sigma processes. That's why there are recalls. I doubt a *single* one of the major climbing gear manufacturers has never had a gear recall.
We all know that the failure rate of CCH gear is much higher than it "should" be. And, not surprisingly, it is also higher than the failure rate of larger gear manufacturers, with better QC procedures. And even those other manufacturers produce more faulty gear than Jay's numbers would lead you to believe (obviously, otherwise you wouldn't see recalls!). So where does that leave you, the humble trad climber?
Right where you should be - taking responsibility for your own damn self and your own damn gear! Make your own informed decisions about what gear you think is worth buying, and how to use it. We don't need any lawsuits to accomplish that.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
Jun 22, 2007, 6:13 PM
Post #148 of 170
(4079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
jt512 wrote: I've been confused from the start about why everybody thinks that a successful suit would require demonstrating negligence by CCH.
I'm no lawyer either, but the difference is probably the amount of dough.
|
|
|
|
|
freeforsum
Jun 22, 2007, 8:37 PM
Post #149 of 170
(4039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Posts: 56
|
Climb at your own risk! Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jun 23, 2007, 5:28 PM
Post #150 of 170
(3979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
Thanks for the useful input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
