|
clarki
Jan 5, 2006, 11:07 PM
Post #126 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 192
|
Apparently I need to sharpen my pencil a bit. I still give the OP a T11 though even if I can't add.
:roll:
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Jan 5, 2006, 11:15 PM
Post #127 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
Troll? You got to be kidding me! If this is true, the OP needs to be kicked off this website.
cl
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 5, 2006, 11:20 PM
Post #128 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
No question, the jury is still out on this whole sordid business.
As for me, I'll rigorously bounce test *all* new cams from *all* makers in the future before I place one IRL.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jan 5, 2006, 11:26 PM
Post #129 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: As for me, I'll rigorously bounce test *all* new cams from *all* makers in the future before I place one IRL.
yeah. are you an aid climber whose placements never fail?
then that'll work great. otherwise you still won't know diddly.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Jan 5, 2006, 11:30 PM
Post #130 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Well.....I suppose we should give Insanio the benefit of the doubt here, as some have suggested be given to CCH while the claims against the company were made.....Hopefully we will hear from him soon, becaue....well, you know how things go. Where's that drama emoticon!?
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jan 5, 2006, 11:34 PM
Post #131 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: If these reports are correct, the failure mechanism is apparently a bad braze. We would expect that type of defect to have some random distribution. It's possible there was a bad batch here too, but we have no reason to think so. Even if there was a cluster of bad brazes, you would expect to find some elsewhere as well.
im with you here. this is particularly scary to me because it is a mistake that is difficult to detect and probably random in nature, unless the joint-man was completely blasted and turned out a whole batch of bad cams. which is unlikely, to say the least.
if someone told me that all the stem-pullout failures were soldered by the same guy and he stopped working at cch in november, then id feel better about december cams. if someone told me that the failures were soldered with the wrong flux and only certain batches were made when it was lyign around, then id like to know the batches. but if its just one here and one there, then there may be plenty more floating around and pull testing random samples isnt going to rule out the possibility of (lots) more defective cams.
In reply to: Pull testing one cam per batch is nice, but probably won't tell us much. I think visual inspection of all aliens is more important. I'd expect most--but not all--of us could spot an improperly brazed device.
hm, really? this is new to me, and could be really important. i have done some brazing and soldering and DO NOT feel comfortable looking at my joints and telling whether they are good. i had to actually make the joint myself to tell. it is easy to screw the joint up but still leave a pretty flawless fillet around the edge to confuse all the folks taking a peek. aliens, as a rule, have a pretty flawless fillet.
when i was working with metal, the only way we could truly be sure if a joint was good was to cut it open and check the penetration. xrays might do the same thing, but i woudlnt know. and the orange alien mentioned in this thread appeared to have good penetration, just bad adherance, so perhaps even cutting an alien open or xraying (or whatever) it might not prove conclusive. i believe this is the root of the expensive three sigma testing. its hard to feel solid that your gear is defect free without breaking a lot of it.
if you do believe that most, 'but not all', of us could spot an improperly brazed alien (with its impeccable fillet) please post. use technical terms if necessary. i would love to know this.
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jan 5, 2006, 11:40 PM
Post #132 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: If these reports are correct, the failure mechanism is apparently a bad braze. We would expect that type of defect to have some random distribution. It's possible there was a bad batch here too, but we have no reason to think so. Even if there was a cluster of bad brazes, you would expect to find some elsewhere as well.
im with you here. this is particularly scary to me because it is a mistake that is difficult to detect and probably random in nature, unless the joint-man was completely blasted and turned out a whole batch of bad cams. which is unlikely, to say the least.
if someone told me that all the stem-pullout failures were soldered by the same guy and he stopped working at cch in november, then id feel better about december cams. if someone told me that the failures were soldered with the wrong flux and only certain batches were made when it was lyign around, then id like to know the batches. but if its just one here and one there, then there may be plenty more floating around and pull testing random samples isnt going to rule out the possibility of (lots) more defective cams.
In reply to: Pull testing one cam per batch is nice, but probably won't tell us much. I think visual inspection of all aliens is more important. I'd expect most--but not all--of us could spot an improperly brazed device.
hm, really? this is new to me, and could be really important. i have done some brazing and soldering and DO NOT feel comfortable looking at my joints and telling whether they are good. i had to actually make the joint myself to tell. it is easy to screw the joint up but still leave a pretty flawless fillet around the edge to confuse all the folks taking a peek.
if you do believe that most, 'but not all', of us could spot an improperly brazes device please post up. use technical terms if necessary. i would love to know this.
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Jan 6, 2006, 12:30 AM
Post #133 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: hm, really? this is new to me, and could be really important. i have done some brazing and soldering and DO NOT feel comfortable looking at my joints and telling whether they are good. i had to actually make the joint myself to tell. it is easy to screw the joint up but still leave a pretty flawless fillet around the edge to confuse all the folks taking a peek.
I don't know if this is common practice, but there's a mil-std that specs on a blind end joint like this one, to start with the filler materiel in the blind end. If you get a good fillet, then you've got a lot of solder in there. That same standard requires radiographic or ultrasound inspection of critical joints such as this. Just looking at it isn't good enough for them.
|
|
|
|
|
ctclimbz
Jan 6, 2006, 12:52 AM
Post #134 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 137
|
[quote="clarki"] Looks like y'all been trolled something fierce. In reply to: Not quite... Whether or not THIS particular thread is a troll, there are several serious and valid questions that have been raised in the last six months about the quality control of Aliens. Period. Try the supertopo thread for examples if you're a disbeliever. And the response from CCH? Still pretty much speaks for itself. They ARE losing customers while this nonsense continues.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 6, 2006, 1:02 AM
Post #135 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
The OP is not a hoax or troll, but I suspect Kevin has only emailed them at this point and I would also encourage him to phone Dave and let him address the issue directly with Kevin. However, that doesn't address the general issues around CCH's manufacturing/QA/Service processes manifest by the several incidents and problems we've seen over the past year. Again, I want Dave, CCH, and Aliens to keep on going - we simply need to see some sign that Dave understands the scope and gravity of the problems we've been discussing and that he is willing to take responibility and ownership of then and then simply proceed on to whatever steps are necessary to correct them. There is no reason he still can't get his relationship with all these loyal and patient customers back on track if he does. He should take this as an opportunity for positive change and a chance to strengthen his relationship with his customers instead of proceeding down the exact opposite path as he has apparently chosen for the moment...
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 6, 2006, 1:10 AM
Post #136 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I also wanted to extend kudos to Paul of MGear for the forthright approach he and his company is taking in this matter. Climbing as an industry hasn't been "innocent" since Chouinard when down under the weight of it's unfortunate legal troubles and problems like these can affect all gear manufacturers over the long haul. But at this time the industry has no organized trade group / technical committee which might help a member company through a problem like this and possibly that is one thing all the gear manufacturers might want to seriously consider.
[ Note: I suspect Malcolm Daly ("malday" here) would never tout his own horn here but I did want to repost this Trango recall notice he bravely posted on alt.rec.climbing back in 1999. It is a model example of someone taking a hit in the most positive way possible... ]
=============================
Trango Captain Hook Pick Recall
Malcolm Daly
Mar 16 1999, 12:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: "Malcolm Daly"
Date: 1999/03/16
Subject: Trango Captain Hook Pick Recall
Dear Ice Climbing Friends,
Sorry to say it, but we've come to the conclusion that we have to replace
all of the picks for the Captain Hook and Claw ice tools. We've had a small
percentage (24 broken picks out of more than 800 out there) break suddenly under typical circumstances that don't seem to have anything to do with
bitter cold temps, hard ice or relentless torquing.
So we're going to make it easy on you. Don't send us anything--go to the
store where you got the tool to get your pick(s)replaced, or let us know
what tools you have and we'll send you new picks and bolts. Most shops
should have the new picks by 3/15. The new picks are waaaay bomber; check out the JPEGs attached and official Recall notice posted on our site at www.trango.com
Please be specific about the model of tool you have. For me to replace your picks I need to know if you have the Captain Hook Bent Shaft, Clearance
Shaft or the Claw.
Sorry for any inconvenience this will cause.
Cheers!
Malcolm Daly, President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 6, 2006, 1:22 AM
Post #138 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
Just how safe IS your mattress :!: :?:
:lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Jan 6, 2006, 2:18 AM
Post #139 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Wow, I don't have the time to read EVERY post, but I must agree that CCH's response was "less than optimal".
The one thing I can't figure out, why don't you folks understand that they (CCH) are already lawyered up? They won't be responding to anything at this point. I can assure you they have already spoken with their councel and will not be coming out with any more statements until a carefuly crafted statement can be made.
Me, I'll continue to buy their gear, hell, I just bought some new aliens! I like their stuff, I've been using it for years.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Jan 6, 2006, 2:49 AM
Post #140 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: The one thing I can't figure out, why don't you folks understand that they (CCH) are already lawyered up? They won't be responding to anything at this point. I can assure you they have already spoken with their councel and will not be coming out with any more statements until a carefuly crafted statement can be made.
Makes one wonder why they obviously didn't do this in the first place, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
greenketch
Jan 6, 2006, 3:15 AM
Post #141 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 501
|
In reply to: Can someone knowledgeable please let us know how to inspect a brazed joint? Also how easily can this process be done improperly? Is it a pretty straight forward procedure for a trained person or is there a high chance for operator error if they are not focused?
Brazed joints are quite difficult to visually inspect without an in process inspection also. As already mentioned it is very similar to soldering just at a differant temperature. If the joint is done correctly it is cleaned, fluxed, then heated to suffiecient temperature and the filler is added from one side. The inflow of alloy displaces the flux. You are left with a solid joint. Inspection is just a case of looking ot see that it is not full of bubbles or flux intrusion, also a smooth fillet on the far side indicating enough heat and sifficient material. Now if someone is in a hurray they can add a little filler on one side and then the other. It looks great and smooth but there is no alloy in the middle.
The one thing I agree with Dave from CCH with is that a competent metalurgist should examine the failed parts. Once the joint fails it is easy to examine and see why.
Quilth, you have a good question. I would suggest that if you are much concerned about it stop by a local plumbing or metal shop and tell them that you would like to see a few good brazes and maybe an example of a bad one. They most likley could show you one and once you have seen what you are looking for it is not too hard to spot. Another choice would be a local High School. If they have metal shop they will have a few good joints and few bad for sure.
Of course the disclaimer that this is an internet crash course in inspection applies. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 6, 2006, 3:57 AM
Post #142 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: As for me, I'll rigorously bounce test *all* new cams from *all* makers in the future before I place one IRL. yeah. are you an aid climber whose placements never fail? then that'll work great. otherwise you still won't know diddly.
Well, they don't fail due to the piece breaking! Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't get your point. The kind of forces that supposedly caused the orange alien this thread is about to fail could certainly be generated in a bounce test.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
insainio
Jan 6, 2006, 4:21 AM
Post #143 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 46
|
Hey all,
After not hearing from cch today, I will be calling them tomorrow to discuss what should be done. I believe that I have given them ample time to respond to my e-mails.
I would like to point out that my e-mail address is displayed clearly on my profile. If it is in fact true that my e-mails did not go through, and Dave did take this seriously, he could have responded to me through my profile.
I will let you know what he says,
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Jan 6, 2006, 7:22 AM
Post #144 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
I dont believe cchaliens is really CCH. The OP is just too poorly written and no one in his right mind would respond that way. There is even a typo in it. I do not see any proof that it is CCH's account, and if there is proof I would like someone to mention it. Yes, there is one other post by cchaliens, but so what.
I do not think that CCH needs to respond to this orange Alien issue on rc.com, but a mention of it and their response to the issue on their web site would be good.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Jan 6, 2006, 7:44 AM
Post #145 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
i hope all you posers stop buying aliens so i can buy them whenever I desire! muahahahaha!
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 6, 2006, 8:50 AM
Post #146 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Joseph, that was Dave and CCH...
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 6, 2006, 12:51 PM
Post #147 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: I dont believe cchaliens is really CCH. The OP is just too poorly written and no one in his right mind would respond that way. There is even a typo in it. I do not see any proof that it is CCH's account, and if there is proof I would like someone to mention it. Yes, there is one other post by cchaliens, but so what.
In reply to: In an earlier post I had asked people who have contacted CCH to post the results of their conversations. I've been keeping a fairly close eye on these threads and have not seen any posts conveying such information. So, I decided to contact CCH myself. I just got off the phone with Dave at CCH who verified that cchaliens does in fact represent CCH.
on an unrelated note- If I headed up a company that produced, what I thought to be incredibly consistent, safe and reliable cams...
and someone publicly questioned or disputed this...
I would find it in my own best interests to arange for some method of disproving the accuser and/or finding a way to re-assure my customers.
This is something CCH needs to be pro-active about. Insano is right, even if they lost his email, they have more than what they would need to get ahold of him regarding this.
And they've had more than enough opportunity to right things with the concerned CCH loyalists
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Jan 6, 2006, 1:37 PM
Post #148 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: Can someone please let us know how to inspect a brazed joint? Also how easily can this process be done improperly? Is it a pretty straight forward procedure for a trained person or is there a high chance for operator error if they are not focused?
Although I am no expert in non destructive testing (NDT) techniques I can tell you a few things!
Things to look for in a visual check would be incomplete fillets, recessed fillets (could be due to brazing gaps), excess filler and the overall condition of the joint. Needless to say one would need to be sufficiently trained to know what to look for. Because of the overlap in the joint visual inspection is only of limited use.
Other NDT techniques that can be used for examining brazed joints are ultrasound, radiography, penetrant detection and thermography (will detect unbonded areas). Ultrasound, using direct echo location, is able to detect quite a few of the potential flaws in the joint such as large pores/inclusions, incomplete flow, longitudinal cracks and incomplete wetting. Radiography is only of use if the filler material has a significantly different X-ray absorption coefficient from the parent materials.
If you would like to read more and enjoy reading engineering standards, the non-destructive testing of brazed joints is covered by European standard EN 12799 (I have no idea what the equivalent American standard is). It has lots of good information on it.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jan 6, 2006, 1:51 PM
Post #149 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
..
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Jan 6, 2006, 2:25 PM
Post #150 of 246
(40708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: Things to look for in a visual check would be incomplete fillets, recessed fillets (could be due to brazing gaps), excess filler and the overall condition of the joint. Needless to say one would need to be sufficiently trained to know what to look for. Because of the overlap in the joint visual inspection is only of limited use.
In reply to: Other NDT techniques that can be used for examining brazed joints are ultrasound, radiography, penetrant detection and thermography (will detect unbonded areas).
Not that was a suggested technique for this problem, but if the brazing is associated with a wire cable (?) then the crevices of the braided cable would interfere (test would tend to "fail" anyway due to crevices in the braided cable).
A lab might follow up Non-Destructive Test with Destructive Test such as sectioning the braze joint and inspecting the internal brazing with a microscope.
In the case of the broken cam, a simple visual inspection by someone who is trained at brazing could reveal whether the braze failed and resolve the "hoax" issue; maybe someone mentioned this. In other words. The cost of having the cam inspected may not be so great and still get pretty close enough to the cause of the problem.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
