|
bobruef
Feb 21, 2006, 7:22 PM
Post #52 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
wow, how original.
|
|
|
|
|
dyno_mutt
Feb 21, 2006, 7:39 PM
Post #53 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2006
Posts: 7
|
In reply to: Don't forget about the misdrilled axels. That makes THREE big FU's in the space of a few months. Quite true. Also, I would point out that if I were ever to replace a product for someone who has already had a problem in the past with my company, I would make absolutely sure the replacement I was sending them was 100% perfect. It sounds like CCH dropped the ball on that one as well.
Another good point. It would be interesting to see what other companies have produced failure wise.
And while it seems like I am defending CCH, I am not defending them in particular. I work for a small manufacturer who had recently had a recall with in the past few years. (nothing to do with climbing community) I received the job after the prior QC person had been let go. I like to think I do a very good job, as does my employer. It isn't always fair to the company that may or may not be making changes to their designs/personnel when the public looses all faith in their product. I wish the best to CCH and nothing but the safest climbing for the rest of us.
Oh yeah. I only check out the site on my breaks, I try not to slack too much :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
dyno_mutt
Feb 21, 2006, 7:41 PM
Post #54 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2006
Posts: 7
|
uhmm, sorry about the crappy quotes. I need to read up on how to work this thing better :oops:
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Feb 21, 2006, 7:44 PM
Post #55 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: FWIW: You'll be lucky if CCH doesn't smack you(Billcoe) with a libel suit. :idea:
:) I reckon he will be safe enough! They have more important things to occupy themselves with at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
napoleon_in_rags
Feb 21, 2006, 8:31 PM
Post #56 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586
|
In reply to: Another good point. It would be interesting to see what other companies have produced failure wise.
I just used the site search engine and conducted an interesting little experiment.
Conduct a search for CCH and 9 of the 20 threads that come up are recall or defect related.
Conduct a search by combining Black Diamond or Camalot with defect, injury, recall, or failure and nothing related comes up.
I realize this is not scientific or conclusive by any means but there are enough BD haters on this site that if an injury or fall was even suspected of being connected to Camalots, there would be a forum. Of course maybe I am not searching the right words...
|
|
|
|
|
giza
Feb 21, 2006, 9:32 PM
Post #57 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 315
|
In reply to: In reply to: Another good point. It would be interesting to see what other companies have produced failure wise. I just used the site search engine and conducted an interesting little experiment. Conduct a search for CCH and 9 of the 20 threads that come up are recall or defect related. Conduct a search by combining Black Diamond or Camalot with defect, injury, recall, or failure and nothing related comes up. I realize this is not scientific or conclusive by any means but there are enough BD haters on this site that if an injury or fall was even suspected of being connected to Camalots, there would be a forum. Of course maybe I am not searching the right words...
Do your search using a regular search engine and you'll get recalls for products made by almost all gear manufacturers including Black Diamond, Petzl, Metolius, Wild Country, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
climboard
Feb 21, 2006, 10:04 PM
Post #58 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 503
|
People keep bringing up the fact that other manufacturers have had recalls. Yep, mistakes happen and everybody makes them yet I trust the other manufacturers more than CCH at the moment due to the way they handled it.
Let's take the recent Wild Country Helium recall for example. Their own in-house testing revealed a possible defect in one batch of biners. What do they do? Contact all their distributors and put a notice on their website notifying consumers that they are doing a voluntary recall on ALL Helium biners even though the problem seems limited to one batch. Better safe than sorry when it comes to safety, right? Wild Country replaced the Heliums and we haven't heard of any complaints or issues since.
Let's take the CCH situation. One user reports a failure at the braze a year ago. He doesn't provide proof so we all dismiss it, no word from CCH. Fair enough.
Later in the year there are multiple reports Orange Aliens with the axle holes drilled in the wrong place. Even with photographic evidence and people contacting them their is little or no information relased from CCH about the issue. I gave them the benefit of the doubt about it being a safety issue but was disappointed to see there was no announcement or a limited recall. People start to question their QC.
The second report comes in about a braze failure complete with photographic evidence. The OP tries contacting CCH and receives no response due to an incorrect e-mail address on their website. When contacted about his post they respond that they will assume it was a hoax until proven otherwise. I have never seen such a callous response from a company, let alone one that manufactures life safety equipment that was obviously defective. That's the point I decided I am not buying any more aliens.
Mountain Gear does testing and reveals a 30% failure rate, forcing CCH to address the issue and they issue a recall. Finally, they are doing an overdue recall because of testing that someone else went to the time and trouble to do. I'm glad to see it but it still doesn't change my mind about their lack of customer service and lack of QC.
Dave announces that they are instituting new QC's, a step in the right direction.
Now we are hearing that a non-dimpled cam that was recently shipped after the recall has failed in a totally separate way. If this proves to be true then that's it, I have completely lost faith in the ability of my Aliens to hold a fall. I am going to return a few I bought recently and retire my older ones.
Sorry for the long post and sorry for beating a dead horse but I am sick of hearing people compare this fiasco to other recalls, it just isn't the same.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingbetty22
Feb 21, 2006, 10:08 PM
Post #59 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 1538
|
In reply to: 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?
I'm not trying to be an apologist here, but I believe that to cite saving money as a motivation for the lack of QC is a mistake. This is not a large corporation with some souless, greedy CEO at the helm. I think more to the point, CCH just can't afford QC. From what I've been told by people who have dealt with CCH directly, their company is little more then two guys in some dude's garage making all these things pretty much by hand. And this is exactly how this problem arose. The design of Aliens is awesome, that's really how they got so popular. But the owner made a conscious decision to not increase the size of the company to fit with the growing demand; he wanted to keep it a small operation. While in some ways I can understand wanting to do so, it has done the climbing community a grave disservice, because now we have this mess. Keeping the company small has meant that proper QC couldn't be implemented, either because of financial reasons or otherwise.
I hate to wish them ill because at the end of the day, CCH is really just a couple of guys trying to do what nearly all climbers want: find a way to support themselves doing what they love. At the same time, I think the best thing for the climbing community at large would be if CCH went out of business and lost the patent on Aliens, at which point, a company like Metolius or BD could pick it up and still produce Aliens, but with more resources behind them, they would be able to ensure better QC. Then everyone wins... climbers still get the advantages the Alien design offers with better assurance of safety. If the owner of CCH is smart, he'll sell off the patent and close the company, instead of waiting until the very end and losing the patent altogether without at all gaining financially. Of course, the way today's business world works, maybe he can reincarnate himself as a consultant for whatever company may pick up the Alien design.
|
|
|
|
|
danieladaniela
Feb 21, 2006, 11:51 PM
Post #60 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Posts: 71
|
In reply to: some souless, greedy CEO at the helm
If it is not soulless to send people, young people almost kids, or "older" people with family and young children, off on unsafe gear, maybe plunging to their death or devastation for life, well-knowing that the gear is not reliable and doing everything possible to cover it up and even now limiting the recall to what cannot be denied, you tell me what a soulless person is.
As I have already pointed out, free testing of *all* cams should be offered and to the very least a warning should be issued and publicized, advising not to use the cams in the meanwhile. All the rest is bullshit. Or should we wait for a tragedy?
|
|
|
|
|
112
Feb 22, 2006, 12:26 AM
Post #61 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
Any pictures yet?
On a side note:
When were dimpled Aliens first produced?
|
|
|
|
|
cam
Feb 22, 2006, 12:56 AM
Post #62 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 219
|
In reply to: As I have already pointed out, free testing of *all* cams should be offered and to the very least a warning should be issued and publicized, advising not to use the cams in the meanwhile. All the rest is s---. Or should we wait for a tragedy?
Word to BigBird on that.
In reply to: I think more to the point, CCH just can't afford QC.
Then it would appear that I for one can't afford to trust their gear. I've never taken a fall on my Aliens and I intend to keep it that way. I wonder...should I label my new blue and yellow Alien keyfobs "not for climbing"?
cam out.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 22, 2006, 1:20 AM
Post #63 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: some souless, greedy CEO at the helm If it is not soulless to send people, young people almost kids, or "older" people with family and young children, off on unsafe gear, maybe plunging to their death or devastation for life, well-knowing that the gear is not reliable and doing everything possible to cover it up and even now limiting the recall to what cannot be denied, you tell me what a soulless person is.
Let's up the hyperbole, drama, and hysteria a notch and while we're at it could we get that in an operetta?
In reply to: As I have already pointed out, free testing of *all* cams should be offered and to the very least a warning should be issued and publicized, advising not to use the cams in the meanwhile. All the rest is s---. Or should we wait for a tragedy?
With all due respect to Chris, the CC.com OP on this one who has been great on following through on all this, a cursory inspection and even a hand pull test on the ground prior to use would have caught this one. A free test is available to anyone with a couple of slings and a rock. No company could sustain "free testing" of *all* cams.
A take away from this sad affair should be to inspect any gear you get from any source be it retail, ebay, a friend, or booty. If it even smells funny give it a quick bounce test. If you still doubt it return it or dump it. Another is at crux points in a route back stuff up.
Despite this cam slipping through in the initial brazing turmoil non-recall cams are safe. If you don't think so bounce test them. If you still don't think so, again, return or dump them.
|
|
|
|
|
labrat0065
Feb 22, 2006, 1:28 AM
Post #64 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2004
Posts: 122
|
anyone not completely feeling solid about your aliens can sell me yours nw68868@appstate.edu
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 22, 2006, 1:30 AM
Post #65 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Any pictures yet?
Nope, Chris hasn't gotten them up yet.
In reply to: On a side note: When were dimpled Aliens first produced?
November 2004
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Feb 22, 2006, 2:12 AM
Post #66 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
photos are up on cascadeclimbers.com . That is one un-pressed nico-press.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 22, 2006, 2:37 AM
Post #67 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Pics are in...
The swage on the piece was never pressed. I just got off the phone with Dave at CCH and it's clear this occured during the initial brazing tumoil before they started putting processes in place. This one got out as it wasn't Dave that put this one in the box but his assistant Diane who was attempting to get one out to Chris after such a long delay. She unfortunately grabbed one off the to-be-swaged pile. Prior to the brazing recall, Dave personally put every cam going out in the box to be shipped. That slipped in this case. This was an unfortunate case where normal workflow was short-circuited in an attempt to correct the previous service screwup and resulted in a bad cam going out and casting yet more doubt on their operation. But as suspected this was an isolated one-off incident that occured prior to their current QC initiatives.
The swaging is done in a hydraulic swager and it is pretty much a binary 'done-or-not' operation. Currently all cams normally have the swage inspected and EU-bound cams have the swage stamped. Dave said he would likely begin extending that EU inspection/stamping process to all cams in light of this incident.
As I've said before, this is a craft/artisan shop and has been for twenty years. Dave is at this point fully cognizant and painfully aware of the need to transform the operation into modern manufacturing one with full and formal QC controls. He is committed to that process, has begun down that road, and harbors no illusion around them needing to reel it all in to a degree in that process. We should, in turn, not harbor any illusions about the fact that these people are anything other than human, not robots; and even committed to doing things right there will invariably be mistakes made over the next year as they undergo the change. In the meantime, inspect your cams, call Dave or Diane if you have any questions or issues with one, and return any problem cams so they can resolve the matter.
http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/...d/548653-goodbad.JPG
http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/...ad/548642-alien1.JPG
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Feb 22, 2006, 2:58 AM
Post #68 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
Photos that give climbers nightmares ^^^^^
It's total BS that they can't afford QC testing. A good used Instron tensile tester with 4 heads can be had for less than 10 grand, plot those points in excel and you have 3 sigma limits, break test a couple from each lot. Pull test the rest to some quantity like half of break strength. Say a 10$/hr part time employee can test 100/hr (25 cycles, probably could do more), if CCH produces 50000 cams a year (wild guess), it'll take the employee 500 hours/year to test 'em, and let's say that much again to plot and mark em tested. 10000$ employee per year/50000 cams = 20 cents per cam. Yeah, that'd break them :lol: I don't think anyone is saying they need to cough up big buck$ to get ISO certified here.
|
|
|
|
|
mattm
Feb 22, 2006, 3:05 AM
Post #69 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
Thought this would be of interest as well - I was at a local shop today (2/21)and they had at least four deep of both regular and offset aliens in stock. Surprised to see this I asked to take a look at an offset Yellow/Red (Full disclosure - I own 2 reg sets to red and one set offsets already with no issues). The new cam looked fine (braze and swage areas) and the trigger had a date of 02/06 or something like that - I remember thinking Feb 06 Wow! I then inquired about them all and the recall - Shop guy said they'd gotten them all in very recently (had 8! sets of offsets and sold 4! in the past week)) and they looked them over before putting them on the wall. By no means a QC test but stores are getting them back and aware of the issues as well. Me? I'm torn at the moment - the issues have given me pause BUT I still love and will use the ones I have. Will I get more (of those glorious offsets)? Depends - I'll probably wait to do a side-by-side of the Met Ultralight TCUs, BD C3s and Offsets - see which one makes me lust the most...
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 22, 2006, 3:17 AM
Post #70 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
For the past twenty years Dave has inspected every cam and put it in the shipping box personally and that was the QC process, albiet an artisan one. In hindsight it's pretty clear that approach was swamped over time by the demands of the REI contract. As repeatedly stated, they are now fully awake to the need for rigorous and formal manufacturing processes and have begun the process of implementing those changes.
That's the reality of the CCH situation so:
A) If you don't like the current situation and don't have any, then simply don't buy their cams. (And given you, danieladaniela and dynosore, aren't a Alien users you've no doubt already made this decision)
B) If you don't like the current situation and do have Aliens - then live and deal with it - otherwise don't use them, return them, sell them, or otherwise dispose of the ones you have.
C) If on the otherhand you like Aliens and have some - inspect them and get ahold of Dave to fix any problem you find with them.
D) If you like them and don't have any yet or need more then the call is up to you - if you buy or otherwise acquire them then follow option C after you get them.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Feb 22, 2006, 3:34 AM
Post #71 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: As I have already pointed out, free testing of *all* cams should be offered
already is.
1) find a vise
2) adjust jaws accordingly
3) funk away
In reply to: and to the very least a warning should be issued and publicized, advising not to use the cams in the meanwhile.
you mean like a Recall Notice or something?
I'm pissed about their handling of the incident too, but come ON, can't you do anything for yourselves? Maybe Dave should offer to come to your house for free and show you how to place the fucking cams?!?
None of the above excuses the way they have handled this incident, but I have to call it like I see it, and the way I see it, you're whining (and unjustifiably so). People have died from Camalot placements failing; thankfully it was not the fault of Black Diamond (as best as anyone can tell) and Chris Harmston did an autopsy on the cam just to be sure. But you owe it to yourself to test your own gear and try to make sure that you don't get the Six Sigma Booby Prize when you rip on it.
I trust DMM and BD to do decent QC and I *still* give their equipment a good bounce test every now and then. QC won't save you from a nicked sling or a busted cable, for example; doing your own testing on a regular basis will identify such units to be fixed or retired.
Again, none of this excuses CCH from their responsibility to produce gear that lives up to the standards it is allegedly certified to. But neither does it excuse you or anyone else from your own personal responsibility to look out for yourself. Ain't nobody else going to.
|
|
|
|
|
napoleon_in_rags
Feb 22, 2006, 3:43 AM
Post #72 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586
|
In reply to: Pics are in... The swage on the piece was never pressed. I just got off the phone with Dave at CCH and it's clear this occured during the initial brazing tumoil before they started putting processes in place. This one got out as it wasn't Dave that put this one in the box but his assistant Diane who was attempting to get one out to Chris after such a long delay. She unfortunately grabbed one off the to-be-swaged pile. Prior to the brazing recall, Dave personally put every cam going out in the box to be shipped. That slipped in this case. This was an unfortunate case where normal workflow was short-circuited in an attempt to correct the previous service screwup and resulted in a bad cam going out and casting yet more doubt on their operation. But as suspected this was an isolated one-off incident that occured prior to their current QC initiatives.
There are still a few more questions that need to be answered:
How many other times did Diane bypass CCHs meager quality control checks?
Did she only send out that one Cam or are there other non-swaged cams out there?
What time period was this? What date did they hit the market?
Is CCH going to hold another recall on the batch that this happened on? They should. If there is any possibility that another non swaged cam got out, there needs to be one. CCH should begin by becoming proactive, not reactive when issues like this comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Feb 22, 2006, 3:55 AM
Post #73 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: How many other times did Diane bypass CCHs meager quality control checks?
One that we know of.
In reply to: Did she only send out that one Cam or are there other non-swaged cams out there?
One that we know of.
In reply to: What time period was this? What date did they hit the market?
Again, at the beginning of the time the brazing icame to light, but before CCH instituted initial QC checks around their workflow.
In reply to: Is CCH going to hold another recall on the batch that this happened on? They should. If there is any possibility that another non swaged cam got out, there needs to be one. CCH should begin by becoming proactive, not reactive when issues like this comes up.
This isn't a "batch" issue. As explained, it's a one-off event. There is nothing to recall outside of this individual cam. Anyone receiving a replacement cam from CCH that is not a Brazing Recall transaction, should check the cam to insure the swage is in fact pressed. It will be round if it was and have a figure-8 end profile if it wasn't.
Again, this was an unfortunate attempt in response to a customer call to rectify a previous service lapse that, in this case, created another one. It has nothing to do with their normal production processes.
|
|
|
|
|
napoleon_in_rags
Feb 22, 2006, 4:00 AM
Post #74 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Another good point. It would be interesting to see what other companies have produced failure wise. I just used the site search engine and conducted an interesting little experiment. Conduct a search for CCH and 9 of the 20 threads that come up are recall or defect related. Conduct a search by combining Black Diamond or Camalot with defect, injury, recall, or failure and nothing related comes up. I realize this is not scientific or conclusive by any means but there are enough BD haters on this site that if an injury or fall was even suspected of being connected to Camalots, there would be a forum. Of course maybe I am not searching the right words... Do your search using a regular search engine and you'll get recalls for products made by almost all gear manufacturers including Black Diamond, Petzl, Metolius, Wild Country, etc...
I will do even better than that. This is the official US page for checking for recalls.
http://www.recalls.gov/search.html
For example, BD has had 3 recalls in the last few years, most notably a headlamp battery recall because the "battery may over heat, posing a burn or fire hazard to consumers". The other recalls were a crampon model where the toes would bend and a telemark ski boot where the cuff would crack. None of these caused an injury before the recall. CCH needs to be as proactive as BD in order to re-win my trust.
I was going to by a green Alien and maybe a couple of hybrids to round out my rack. I think now I will wait and see how things pan out.
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Feb 22, 2006, 4:11 AM
Post #75 of 199
(30921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
In reply to: 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.
yeah cause i just come on here to troll, that's my MO and it helps me get off at night.... :roll: that word is tossed around so much on this website i think it's lost all meaning....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
