|
|
|
|
gunked
Feb 21, 2006, 4:40 AM
Post #26 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Posts: 615
|
And once again...Crack Diamond...the winner!!!
Yeah, I love the way BD used to test their gear out on the public. For years, I wouldn't consider buying anything made by them if it was the product's first year out. My favorite is still the CF Black Prophets :) !
I have many aliens and love them. My newest one being from '93.
I've stood by them for years. I've spoken with the owner a few years back when there was a problem with one of my hybrids.
That said, he deserves to lose the company. He made a decision not to let the company grow and to remain a garage-like operation. He then traded quality for quantity by trying to keeping up with the demand. This was his MAJOR MISTAKE!
The climbing industry has grown and evolved(come up with stricter safety standards). If it didn't, because of the popularity boom in climbing, we'd all be in far greater danger of losing our climbing priveleges across the land as more deaths would be occuring. We don't need that kind of press!
Here's (raising a pint) to CCH going down and to another, reputable gear manufacturer picking up the patent! :wink:
-Jason :D
Edited to add: I am absolutely appaled at the way CCH handled the recall in the beginning
|
|
|
|
|
guanoboy
Feb 21, 2006, 5:25 AM
Post #27 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2004
Posts: 244
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: okay i'm done now. i will be throwing those pieces of s--- in the garbage can immediately Go ahead and send those pieces of s--- my way. PM me for shipping address. sorry, but unlike cch i'm not in the business of distributing faulty, life endangering products
I grew up climbing in a swami with slung carparts - i've got to tell you that aliens are worlds ahead of slung car parts. I'm guessing you aren't really going to throw those aliens out. If you are, please don't break the hearts of those of us out there who would love to have them.
send them my way - $10/each?
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Feb 21, 2006, 5:54 AM
Post #28 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: okay i'm done now. i will be throwing those pieces of s--- in the garbage can immediately Go ahead and send those pieces of s--- my way. PM me for shipping address. sorry, but unlike cch i'm not in the business of distributing faulty, life endangering products I grew up climbing in a swami with slung carparts - i've got to tell you that aliens are worlds ahead of slung car parts. I'm guessing you aren't really going to throw those aliens out. If you are, please don't break the hearts of those of us out there who would love to have them. send them my way - $10/each?
Calm down, he's just trolling you.
http://a.abclocal.go.com/...kabc/ricromerobg.jpg
News flash: climbing is dangerous. Test your pieces. All of them. I test mine, especially since lots of them come from mfgr's that no longer exist.
Considering that I have snapped the cables on micronuts and heads on aid while testing them, I like to think that my bounce tests are reasonably stout. Especially the funk-it-in-my-vise test for cams (Aliens and BDs).
Do what you like with your gear, just don't take anyone else's word on its safety. Test them yourself and decide accordingly.
I probably won't buy any new CCH units as a result of this debacle, FWIW.
|
|
|
|
|
thatnameisalreadychosen
Feb 21, 2006, 7:24 AM
Post #29 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2005
Posts: 45
|
Now, now...everyone calm down.
We all saw what a great job CCH did with the last thread of reported failures here at rc.com. I am willing to risk my life based on their word that their products comply with strict qc - NOT
I wonder how long it will be until mgear decides to do CCH's quality control testing for them again - I'm not willing to wait - id rather squeeze my nuts through the thumb loop than risk using them - so here is a BIG cheers with/to you Jason.
When i get my dimpled hybrid back - all you peeps who have "never had a problem" with your aliens can buy my 3 hybrids, yellow and blue off me - but don't hold your breath cause I'm still waiting for the dimpled hybrid to be replaced. I'm sure with all the c**p cams they are putting back into circulation, that should be at least a couple of years from now.
As for a libel suit - bring it! - you have to prove falsity of the statement - good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Feb 21, 2006, 8:40 AM
Post #30 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: Billcoe, you need to be VEEEEEERY careful about this thread, because nowhere in the OP was it ever stated that this cam wasn't dimpled. It stated it a was as of a few weeks ago as well as later stating there were no numbers on it aside from the sticker. It was YOU that asked a question in regards to the lack of a dimple, and did so in the form of a statement rather than an actual question. The OP then responded but said nothing in regards to your dimple comment. You then post a thread over here that's entitled " Another Alien falls apart! Not a dimpled one." as if it were in deed a factual statement, when it is not, based upon the posts on the other board. :evil: FWIW: You'll be lucky if CCH doesn't smack you with a libel suit. :idea:
http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/...16a30eaf3#Post548231
In reply to: 3) as far as markings go, theres not much to tell. its definetly not a dimpled cam (that would really be out there for them to ship one of those out eh?) on the bottom of the trigger (cam side) is the "alien cch usa" stamp and on the top is a small (1/8" diameter) blue sticker w a number 9 written in pen on it. it might be a 6, or a d, or a b, or a q,...but it MOST resembles the number 9. i have meticulously looked over this cam and there are no other markings. i will post a few pictures tomorrow.
It was pretty clearly stated...And the failure mode was not the same as the braze issue CCH had announced in their recall. This sounds like the unit was never swaged/ crimped.
I'll wait for pictures untill I really belive it...but IF this IS true... :arrow: F*ck CCH!
Cheers,
Jim
edit: posted before I ready healyj's post and all.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Feb 21, 2006, 8:51 AM
Post #31 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: And once again...Crack Diamond...the winner!!! Yeah, I love the way BD used to test their gear out on the public. For years, I wouldn't consider buying anything made by them if it was the product's first year out. My favorite is still the CF Black Prophets :) ! I have many aliens and love them. My newest one being from '93. I've stood by them for years. I've spoken with the owner a few years back when there was a problem with one of my hybrids. That said, he deserves to lose the company. He made a decision not to let the company grow and to remain a garage-like operation. He then traded quality for quantity by trying to keeping up with the demand. This was his MAJOR MISTAKE! The climbing industry has grown and evolved(come up with stricter safety standards). If it didn't, because of the popularity boom in climbing, we'd all be in far greater danger of losing our climbing priveleges across the land as more deaths would be occuring. We don't need that kind of press! Here's (raising a pint) to CCH going down and to another, reputable gear manufacturer picking up the patent! :wink: -Jason :D Edited to add: I am absolutely appaled at the way CCH handled the recall in the beginning
*clinks glasses, and offers to buy the next round*
Well put bro!
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 21, 2006, 10:05 AM
Post #32 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: My guess is that CCH did pull test the brazed joint - before the thumb loop was assembled. For example: mount the axle end in a fixture, grip the cable end in a vice or whatever, and pull. If it holds together, cut the cable to it's final length (removing any marred cable) and form the thumb loop. Very reasonable way to pull-test every braze joint.
Bill7,
I don't know but will inquire as to the order of pull testing relative to assembly. Given the timeline the OP is providing I strongly suspect this cam actually went out during the initial turmoil around the Brazing issue, but before they instituted pull testing. Again, I'll see if I can't verify that. I have no doubt at all about the OP's veracity or that this did in fact happen and the OP will be putting photos up. It is undoubtably just another sign that this has been a craft/artisan shop badly in need of formal QC process controls. That they didn't happen overnight shouldn't necessarily be a shocker. No one changes overnight and it's likely to take some period of time before they have a good QC wrapper around every single process step. That they are now pull testing cams before they ship is good as it means they are starting at the end of the workflow and over time instituting checks backwards from that which is a good approach.
I can't argue with the the fact that Dave has made choices about the long term direction of his company and then had problems as a result. They are attempting to address them and this cam appears to have slipped through in the turmoil before they got serious about that effort. Again, everyone is going to have to make up their own minds as to their relationship with CCH. Either we collectively decide we want options and for this company to survive or we don't. It's up to each of you ultimately. I've seen us lose too many gear companies over the years so my personal vote is that they survive and either get an an act together, sell the company, or license the product. If you prefer either of the latter it would be better if the company survives. CCH's fate has always been in your hands and Dave's and continues to be so today.
Joseph Healy
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Feb 21, 2006, 1:37 PM
Post #33 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
cch apologist wrote:
In reply to: That they are now pull testing cams before they ship is good as it means they are starting at the end of the workflow and over time instituting checks backwards from that which is a good approach.
That's a horrible approach. What good is a solid brazed head when the thumb loop fails? Here's a "good approach". Don't sell another frickin' cam until you know they live up to their strength rating. Oh wait, that would cost them money, couldn't have that now could we?
In reply to: It is undoubtably just another sign that this has been a craft/artisan shop badly in need of formal QC process controls. That they didn't happen overnight shouldn't necessarily be a shocker. No one changes overnight and it's likely to take some period of time before they have a good QC wrapper around every single process step.
You don't institute a QC program a bit at a time years after you've already been producing a product, especially one people count on as a life saving device. If indeed they keep putting out product that they haven't thoroughly tested, especially after the recent debacle, it only makes it crystal clear that they care far more about profits than their customers, in case it wasn't clear already. What a joke that you're still apologizing for this pathetic company. I pray you're not in any sort of manufacturing or QC role.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 21, 2006, 2:08 PM
Post #34 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: cch apologist wrote:
Actually I'm not. I am simply trying to mediate some aspects of this whole affair. My cams outside of the hybrids are Metolius and BD.
In reply to: In reply to: That they are now pull testing cams before they ship is good as it means they are starting at the end of the workflow and over time instituting checks backwards from that which is a good approach. That's a horrible approach. What good is a solid brazed head when the thumb loop fails? Here's a "good approach". Don't sell another frickin' cam until you know they live up to their strength rating. Oh wait, that would cost them money, couldn't have that now could we?
Again, given the timeline, it's most likely this cam went out before pull testing was begun. As to the "start at the end approach" you need to read it again. Pull testing cams at the end of the workflow (i.e. after loop swaging and before shipping) is in fact exactly the first step you'd want to see instituted as they figure out how to get a formal program put in place.
In reply to: In reply to: It is undoubtably just another sign that this has been a craft/artisan shop badly in need of formal QC process controls. That they didn't happen overnight shouldn't necessarily be a shocker. No one changes overnight and it's likely to take some period of time before they have a good QC wrapper around every single process step. You don't institute a QC program a bit at a time years after you've already been producing a product, especially one people count on as a life saving device. If indeed they keep putting out product that they haven't thoroughly tested, especially after the recent debacle, it only makes it crystal clear that they care far more about profits than their customers, in case it wasn't clear already.
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. You think all products were produced after we invented modern quality paradigms? Get serious, they were all imposed on existing product lines in the late 90's right on through to today. Tens of thousands of companies are still just now instituting ISO9001/2 and WCM programs. Do you think the auto companies stopped producing cars until they had programs in place? Get a grip. All change is cultural, all change takes time. That includes the imposition of quality programs over existing manufacturing lines and operations.
In reply to: What a joke that you're still apologizing for this pathetic company. I pray you're not in any sort of manufacturing or QC role.
Actually I'm and ISO auditor and I'm not apologizing for CCH. I am trying to facilitate an at least minimally constructive process where the overly-dramatic and uniformed don't simply run over a more objective and realistic approach to addressing the problems we've been seeing. No one has been calling CCH on this stuff longer or on a more consistent and ongoing basis both here and behind the scenes than I and several other individuals within the industry who have been actively engaged in this matter for the past year.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Feb 21, 2006, 2:24 PM
Post #35 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
My first "real" job was in 1995 in a QC role for a company with a whopping 9 employees. We had 3 sigma controls, mandatory calibration schedules for testing equipment, once a year round robin testing with outside firms, etc. Of course, we actually cared to put out a quality product. I've since moved to research but the principles are the same. I would think those who make any sort of device that people use specifically for their personal safety would be doubly diligent about their product. Their is NO excuse for not, other than they simply don't care. Now that it hits their pocketbook they're "concerned". How quaint. I hope they go under and sell the rights to someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 21, 2006, 2:36 PM
Post #36 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: My first "real" job was in 1995 in a QC role for a company with a whopping 9 employees. We had 3 sigma controls, mandatory calibration schedules for testing equipment, once a year round robin testing with outside firms, etc.
So following your line of reasoning we can assume this company produced absolutely no products before 3 sigma, mandatory calibration, and outside auditing. I might believe that if it were a relatively new company, otherwise at some point they put out products without those QC measures and still thought they put out a "quality product".
I think its safe to say at this point your preference on CC's disposition is clearly noted.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Feb 21, 2006, 2:41 PM
Post #37 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: In reply to: My guess is that CCH did pull test the brazed joint - before the thumb loop was assembled. For example: mount the axle end in a fixture, grip the cable end in a vice or whatever, and pull. If it holds together, cut the cable to it's final length (removing any marred cable) and form the thumb loop. Very reasonable way to pull-test every braze joint. I don't know but will inquire as to the order of pull testing relative to assembly. Given the timeline the OP is providing I strongly suspect this cam actually went out during the initial turmoil around the Brazing issue, but before they instituted pull testing. Again, I'll see if I can't verify that.
Although I am not yet an alien owner, like others I've appreciated your efforts at keeping this whole thing in perspective.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Feb 21, 2006, 2:54 PM
Post #38 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: Um.....TGreene.....from the guy who had the failure....in the same thread at: 02/20/06 07:26 PM http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/...16a30eaf3#Post548231 In reply to: 3) as far as markings go, theres not much to tell. its definetly not a dimpled cam (that would really be out there for them to ship one of those out eh?) on the bottom of the trigger (cam side) is the "alien cch usa" stamp and on the top is a small (1/8" diameter) blue sticker w a number 9 written in pen on it. it might be a 6, or a d, or a b, or a q,...but it MOST resembles the number 9. i have meticulously looked over this cam and there are no other markings. i will post a few pictures tomorrow. It was pretty clearly stated...And the failure mode was not the same as the braze issue CCH had announced in their recall. This sounds like the unit was never swaged/ crimped. I'll wait for pictures untill I really belive it...but IF this IS true... :arrow: F*ck CCH! Cheers, Jim edit: posted before I ready healyj's post and all. |
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Feb 21, 2006, 3:34 PM
Post #39 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: Um.....TGreene.....from the guy who had the failure....in the same thread at: 02/20/06 07:26 PM http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/...16a30eaf3#Post548231 In reply to: 3) as far as markings go, theres not much to tell. its definetly not a dimpled cam (that would really be out there for them to ship one of those out eh?) on the bottom of the trigger (cam side) is the "alien cch usa" stamp and on the top is a small (1/8" diameter) blue sticker w a number 9 written in pen on it. it might be a 6, or a d, or a b, or a q,...but it MOST resembles the number 9. i have meticulously looked over this cam and there are no other markings. i will post a few pictures tomorrow. It was pretty clearly stated...And the failure mode was not the same as the braze issue CCH had announced in their recall. This sounds like the unit was never swaged/ crimped. I'll wait for pictures untill I really belive it...but IF this IS true... :arrow: F*ck CCH! Cheers, Jim edit: posted before I ready healyj's post and all. Please note the time stamps, because the NO DIMPLE statement was made 12 hours after the initial post. Up to that point, everything was pure speculation.
No worries, I didn't see when you made that initial post...when I first saw these threads it was after the no-dimple statement, which i quoted, was posted. I posted to clear things up for us at RC.com, before I read the rest of the thread....my bad there. :oops:
Moving on.....
I don't think it's ok to just brush this off....which is the vibe I get from a lot of people on these Alien threads. This is the 3rd issue I've seen with Aliens in the past 2 or 3 years. Axle location mis-drilling, for starters (which is so painfully fuckin' obvious...I don't understand how they got shipped without someone noticing.) I mean, how to you put trigger wires on these things, and not give them a squeeze or two? Ya didn't notice the unit stayed the same size through the whole retraction???
Then this brazing issue, another widespread problem; and now this "oops, we forgot to actually crimp that one!" problem. WTF!?
We as climbers put a lot of faith in our gear, and those that make it. There's no way around it. What if this type of manufacturing made it's way into the rope market? There'd have been a lot of deaths, and serious injuries. This approach can't be tollerated.
So, for everyone that think's we should all just play the role of the catholic priest, ask for a few hail mary's, and forget about it....what's your proposal in the mean time? Have all of us go out to the crags and funk test every biner, runner, nut, tricam, slcd, hex, rope, harness, helmet?
Well then, what the fuck are we paying for? If I'm paying for climbing gear, that's got all these cert's and shit, which drives up the price on it all....I want to know it's good! Why don't most climbing shops take returns on this stuff? Cause they are trying to guarentee quality. What good is that if this shit is coming as-is from the manufactures?
These guys are making equipment we trust our lives to, not selling comic books as-is.
:arrow: Pull your products off the market, hire an ouside firm to evaluate your setup, go through your process step-by-step and think about how you could fuck it up (then put measures in place to prevent it) ....THEN, make it all public, replace/ test every cam you've released since you started having problems...
THEN, MAYBE I'll climb above one of your cams. (but probablty not before I park a TCU right under it...)
Until then.... f*ck CCH. They made their bed, let em sleep in it.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Feb 21, 2006, 3:56 PM
Post #40 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: I don't think it's ok to just brush this off....which is the vibe I get from a lot of people on these Alien threads. This is the 3rd issue I've seen with Aliens in the past 2 or 3 years.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 21, 2006, 4:06 PM
Post #41 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I don't think it's ok to just brush this off.... ... So, for everyone that think's we should all just play the role of the catholic priest, ask for a few hail mary's, and forget about it....
No one is brushing this off or forgeting about it, nor have we forgotten the misdrilled axle holes. Nothing I'm going say is necessarily going to stop you or dynosore or anyone else that simply want blood and for them to shut their doors. I'm simply suggesting that if you want them to stick around and fix the quality issues than you have to be at least slightly realistic and patient about how that might be able to happen.
How it can realistically unfold is to immediately put a couple of intial QC measures in place like cam lobe and pull testing until a formal QC program can be started; and that they've done. But a real QC program that doesn't happen overnight and will probably take the best part of a year or so to get certed. The idea that they'll overnight somehow become imbuded with a robotic sense of quality and not make any mistakes is also just not realistic. That an unswaged cam got out or a dimpled cam was simply returned to a climber are the exact types of mistakes that can happen in an organization initially struggles to adapt while under a gun.
Again, you folks can run an Internet lynch mob and try to run them out of business or you can attempt to engage them constructively. I just prefer the latter, but to each his or her own.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Feb 21, 2006, 4:07 PM
Post #42 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
In reply to: So following your line of reasoning we can assume this company produced absolutely no products before 3 sigma, mandatory calibration, and outside auditing. I might believe that if it were a relatively new company, otherwise at some point they put out products without those QC measures and still thought they put out a "quality product".
This company always had specs in place and implemented 3 sigma standards etc. a couple years before I started. These aren't new ideas. If you have a strength spec, you test to ensure you're meeting it. These ideas are 100 years old, seriously. CCH had plenty of time to do something, and with the axle drilling problems they had a perfect reason to upgrade their QC. Maybe they have a satisfactory program in place now, but the fact that they didn't until it hit their pocketbooks and reputation says all I need to know about their business philosophy.
In reply to: I think its safe to say at this point your preference on CC's disposition is clearly noted
I don't care to state my position so much as to offer a counter-point to your position as someone involved in manufacturing and QC who thinks this is somehow excusable. I've worked for three different companies, one small and two large, and CCH's QC and public relations practices are so much worse than any of them that it boggles my mind. Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Feb 21, 2006, 4:10 PM
Post #43 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
That CC thread said that he posted pictures.. but they dont seem to be anywhere in that thread and havent been cross posted over to this thread. I'm sure people would be interested in seeing them here too
Also i don't like the idea of stickers instead of stamped in batch numbers. after taking them out a few times those stickers are toast and then who knows when they came from.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 21, 2006, 4:13 PM
Post #44 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: That CC thread said that he posted pictures.. but they dont seem to be anywhere in that thread and havent been cross posted over to this thread. I'm sure people would be interested in seeing them here too
Jake, the thread and his pm to me said he's going to post photos as soon as he can and as soon as he does we'll cross post them here.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 21, 2006, 4:45 PM
Post #45 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Joseph, thank you for taking time to update us.
My own personal feelngs toward CCH aside, I'd like to reiterate healyje's request for everybody to keep a level head and a civil keyboard. It is possible make a point without insulting half the people reading. Gratuitous flaming will be moderated.
Thanks everybody,
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 21, 2006, 5:04 PM
Post #46 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I don't care to state my position so much as to offer a counter-point to your position as someone involved in manufacturing and QC who thinks this is somehow excusable.
At no time have I said I think any of what has gone on is excusable. However, my approach in general has nothing to do with past performance which we can all agree left a lot to be desired and eventually caught up with them and everything to do with how they move forward constructively from where they are today. Again, to me CCH hasn't been a "manufacturing company" it 's been a craftman/artisan shop that now needs to become a manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
|
dyno_mutt
Feb 21, 2006, 5:19 PM
Post #47 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2006
Posts: 7
|
I have a question. If CCH hadn't had the "dimple problem" how much noise would have been made over this ONE incident? I agree that these are products that people's lives do depend on and any company who produces such devices should have the strictest QC procedures to ensure safe and dependable usage.
Yet even with the biggest (Ford) companies things happen. From a percentage stand point alone, no one is going to put out a 100% failure free product. For this reason there are "tech services" departments where repairs are performed. Many companies have things returned on a daily basis for various reasons. Let's not jump to conclusions.
As a side note, I love this site. It gives me much pleasure on my lunch brakes :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Feb 21, 2006, 6:50 PM
Post #49 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
In reply to: I have a question. If CCH hadn't had the "dimple problem" how much noise would have been made over this ONE incident?
Don't forget about the misdrilled axels. That makes THREE big FU's in the space of a few months.
|
|
|
|
|
napoleon_in_rags
Feb 21, 2006, 7:03 PM
Post #50 of 199
(26803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586
|
In reply to: As a side note, I love this site. It gives me much pleasure on my lunch brakes :)
And this site loves you! Keep slacking!!!
On a serious note, one defense of CCH on this site is that all manufacturers have defective products and recalls. But how many other major Cam companies have had a defect lead to an injury or death in the last 4 years? And how have they responded to it? If you remember any, please respond. Ultimately, CCH has do be judged by the standards of the industry and if WC, BD, Metolius, etc have had spotless QC over the few years while CCH has had these problems.... Its time to buy new cams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
