|
|
|
|
pjdf
May 7, 2007, 11:50 PM
Post #76 of 354
(21853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2006
Posts: 307
|
Tim,
Thanks for the information. I lack the workbench area to bolt a vise well, but will be purchasing a funkness device to use at a crag in the future. Since I don't have a climbing hammer, do you have any recommendations of other gear with which I could yank the cord? I could try using a normal hammer, but I'm not certain whether or not such a hammer would hold up to the force. I'd rather not yank on the cam and have a hammer's head fall out.
In the absence of the vise setup, I did pull on the Aliens with my car this weekend, tied on with 4mm cord. I didn't actually get the cord to break, but I was pulling along my father's Corolla (the back anchor) in gear and with the emergency break on. At the very least, it certainly survives the more than the bodyweight level tests, though perhaps not to 1/2 strength. I suspect the cord was near breaking, given the feeling afterwards (it had lost all its elasticity and felt really stiff), so hopefully not a bad test. It added at least a bit of confidence for me, though I'm not sure I'm fully happy yet.
-James
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 7, 2007, 11:54 PM
Post #77 of 354
(21853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
mojomonkey wrote: It still would be nice to hear that they are actively looking to get the piece in question or results from an independent test. Something. It can't be a huge legal problem to give a bit of status like Omega Pacific did on the link cam issue.
Oh, I agree. And I'm not making excuses. Just offering up one possible reason they haven't said anything in this thread.
And kudos to Omega Pacific for stepping up to the plate like they did. That's damn admirable.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 8, 2007, 12:39 AM
Post #78 of 354
(21815 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
I think you are probably correct reno. I've had a distinct impression it was lawyer related. Getting an e-mail saying, "Sorry we couldn't e-mail you back, we will be calling you shortly" just rings like lawyer intervention. However, I say if you guys have questions or anything, you should try calling them up. The guy I talked to seemed like he had repeated what he had said before, but I still got to at least hear the information first hand from them. I'd be interested to hear what others get told and everything.
|
|
|
|
|
rhyang
May 8, 2007, 12:50 AM
Post #79 of 354
(21801 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 140
|
It was noted on a thread at Supertopo that CCH has posted a notice on their website :
In reply to: It has been recently reported to CCH that the main cable broke on an Alien. We were e-mailed photos of the cam, however it isn't possible to make any conclusions from a photograph. We have asked the individual to forward the cam to a certified metallurgist for analysis, as of today April 27th, 2007 it has not yet been received by the lab. We will post the results as soon as we receive them from the metallurgist. |
|
|
|
|
boku
May 8, 2007, 12:58 AM
Post #80 of 354
(21788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
stymingersfink wrote: Rather than a vice+funkness, would it be possible to design a testing device using a two-ton hydraulic jack? doing so would offer some semblance of continuity in the testing pressure, especially since it will be done in my garage, rather than D. Waggoner's garage (as it obviously is not). Rather than try and re-invent the wheel, perhaps a good start might be a press similar to that used to press bearing races...?
Better to pull than to push. Have a look at these photos of the tensile test Break-O-Tron I assembled to do load testing on airplane parts and climbing gear:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=1515428;#1515428
http://www.supertopo.com/...msg=292452#msg292452
I'd be glad to pull-test Aliens to 50% rating with it.
(This post was edited by boku on May 8, 2007, 1:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 8, 2007, 1:34 AM
Post #81 of 354
(21758 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
rhyang wrote: It was noted on a thread at Supertopo that CCH has posted a notice on their website : In reply to: It has been recently reported to CCH that the main cable broke on an Alien. We were e-mailed photos of the cam, however it isn't possible to make any conclusions from a photograph. We have asked the individual to forward the cam to a certified metallurgist for analysis, as of today April 27th, 2007 it has not yet been received by the lab. We will post the results as soon as we receive them from the metallurgist.
They still don't get quite get it.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
May 8, 2007, 2:48 AM
Post #82 of 354
(21702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
Maybe there will be an outbreak of injuries from people trying to be safer. Bounce testing themselves of the rocks, flying shrapnel from failed placements or makeshift pull tests, or perhaps later on, from cams damaged by home made test rigs.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 8, 2007, 3:15 AM
Post #83 of 354
(21680 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
j_ung wrote: As for buying a company... it's a bit easier said than done. For the record, a purchase of CCH and/or its design for Aliens has been attempted more than once before. Most recently an attempt was made around the time of last year's recall. I don't think CCH can stand up to due diligence.
Only a complete retard would buy CCH, the company. The smart thing for some good gear manufacturer to do is buy the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the "Alien" technology. That way, the acquiring company is not exposed any potential liability that the company CCH may have.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 8, 2007, 12:51 PM
Post #84 of 354
(21590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
curt wrote: j_ung wrote: As for buying a company... it's a bit easier said than done. For the record, a purchase of CCH and/or its design for Aliens has been attempted more than once before. Most recently an attempt was made around the time of last year's recall. I don't think CCH can stand up to due diligence. Only a complete retard would buy CCH, the company. The smart thing for some good gear manufacturer to do is buy the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the "Alien" technology. That way, the acquiring company is not exposed any potential liability that the company CCH may have. Curt
How easy is that to do?
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 8, 2007, 2:23 PM
Post #85 of 354
(21514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
mojomonkey wrote: It still would be nice to hear that they are actively looking to get the piece in question or results from an independent test. Something. It can't be a huge legal problem to give a bit of status like Omega Pacific did on the link cam issue.
Doing "the right thing" at this point will do little to repair the breached trust between climbers and that company. Cynical, but true. At this stage, its irrepairable. If I were CCH, at this point, I'd be very concerned about legal action, especially if I had happened to google something like.. oh... CCH Alien failure.
Edit: just read the post about them mentioning the failure on their website. While a step in the right direction, it seems that they're still in a bit of denail. The cable broke? WTF?
(This post was edited by bobruef on May 8, 2007, 2:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 8, 2007, 2:33 PM
Post #86 of 354
(21501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
j_ung wrote: curt wrote: j_ung wrote: As for buying a company... it's a bit easier said than done. For the record, a purchase of CCH and/or its design for Aliens has been attempted more than once before. Most recently an attempt was made around the time of last year's recall. I don't think CCH can stand up to due diligence. Only a complete retard would buy CCH, the company. The smart thing for some good gear manufacturer to do is buy the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the "Alien" technology. That way, the acquiring company is not exposed any potential liability that the company CCH may have. Curt How easy is that to do?
I think buying patents is very easy.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 8, 2007, 2:38 PM
Post #87 of 354
(21493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
microbarn wrote: j_ung wrote: curt wrote: j_ung wrote: As for buying a company... it's a bit easier said than done. For the record, a purchase of CCH and/or its design for Aliens has been attempted more than once before. Most recently an attempt was made around the time of last year's recall. I don't think CCH can stand up to due diligence. Only a complete retard would buy CCH, the company. The smart thing for some good gear manufacturer to do is buy the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the "Alien" technology. That way, the acquiring company is not exposed any potential liability that the company CCH may have. Curt How easy is that to do? I think buying patents is very easy.
Relatively speaking? Or can you just buy a patent and file some paperwork, like you might buy a used car?
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 8, 2007, 2:45 PM
Post #88 of 354
(21479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
j_ung wrote: microbarn wrote: j_ung wrote: curt wrote: j_ung wrote: As for buying a company... it's a bit easier said than done. For the record, a purchase of CCH and/or its design for Aliens has been attempted more than once before. Most recently an attempt was made around the time of last year's recall. I don't think CCH can stand up to due diligence. Only a complete retard would buy CCH, the company. The smart thing for some good gear manufacturer to do is buy the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the "Alien" technology. That way, the acquiring company is not exposed any potential liability that the company CCH may have. Curt How easy is that to do? I think buying patents is very easy. Relatively speaking? Or can you just buy a patent and file some paperwork, like you might buy a used car?
Along the lines of a car depending on your goals and lawyers.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
In reply to: Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, given away, or simply abandoned. |
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
May 8, 2007, 3:00 PM
Post #89 of 354
(21449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
I'm betting the main obstacle would be: is the patent for sale? I'm sure the patent owner wants to keep his business, even if he isn't acting like it...
I'm sure the patent would fetch a pretty penny too. If I win the lottery maybe I'll make an offer. I think it would be cool to own a cam company... Ahhh keep dreaming Robin.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
May 8, 2007, 3:00 PM
Post #90 of 354
(21449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
Hey Maldaly, are you reading this? 
d.
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
May 8, 2007, 3:29 PM
Post #91 of 354
(21395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
At this point, buying the patent wouldn't be worth it. I found it on the USPTO site (patent # 4932160), and it was filed December 1988, granted May 8 1990. So it will expire fairly soon.
|
|
|
|
|
m2j1s
May 8, 2007, 4:03 PM
Post #92 of 354
(21341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Posts: 77
|
Quick question, does bounce testing cams at the crag do any damage to the brazing or any other part of the cam (besides scratching the lobes)? I think its time to whip out every alien and take a few jumps, i just dont want to make them weaker so that if i actually did take a fall they would still have 'full strength'
|
|
|
|
|
reg
May 8, 2007, 4:17 PM
Post #93 of 354
(21324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
i gotta say that it appears the cable did not extend down into the sleeve - if it had then frayed strands would be sticking out of the sleeve and the cable end. it appears that the cable is mearly brazed to the top of the sleeve (if it is a sleeve and not just a post!). WTF kind of construction is that!!
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 8, 2007, 4:29 PM
Post #94 of 354
(21309 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
j_ung wrote: microbarn wrote: j_ung wrote: curt wrote: j_ung wrote: As for buying a company... it's a bit easier said than done. For the record, a purchase of CCH and/or its design for Aliens has been attempted more than once before. Most recently an attempt was made around the time of last year's recall. I don't think CCH can stand up to due diligence. Only a complete retard would buy CCH, the company. The smart thing for some good gear manufacturer to do is buy the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the "Alien" technology. That way, the acquiring company is not exposed any potential liability that the company CCH may have. Curt How easy is that to do? I think buying patents is very easy. Relatively speaking? Or can you just buy a patent and file some paperwork, like you might buy a used car?
If CCH is willing, licensing their patent would be fairly straightforward. This would permit another manufacutuer to produce aliens according to the specs of the patent, and CCH would get the royalty for each unit (or however the license agreement would be structured.) As someone pointed out, the patent will expire quite soon, so it doesn't really make sense to licence something that will soon be fair game.
Another way would be to purchase the patent outright from CCH. Again, not much value, about to expire.
both of those methods leave the liability for existing aliens with CCH. So would an asset deal for the company (although I suspect the only real asset of CCH is the alien patent.)
what someone would have to be out of their mind to do, would be to purchase CCH, the company. This would give them the patent and the facility, but it would also purchase the existing and past liability of the company! Given that there is probably still an unknown amount of jingus cams out there, you could be walking into a liability nightmare.
Just think, CCH is probably a relatively poor company. But what if a relativley rich company picked them up? More incentive to sue.
|
|
|
|
|
boku
May 8, 2007, 4:48 PM
Post #95 of 354
(21283 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
reg wrote: i gotta say that it appears the cable did not extend down into the sleeve...
That's my take on it as well, that's what I see in the nice clean cable end.
I've seen lots of overload failures in steel cables, and none of them have looked like what we see in the photos. Usually, the cable frazzles out into a horsetail of separated strands.
If the cable really wasn't inserted into the sleeve properly, I can't think of any way it would pull test beyond a couple hundred pounds. Brazing gives good shear strength, but I don't think it has that kind of tensile strength.
One thing I'm curious about: when this Alien was assembled did it look the same as others of its size? Did the cable look longer, or was its cable loop larger? I'd think that all of the steel cables would be cut to a uniform length, so that when a unit has insufficient sleeve insertion you can tell at a glance by the amount of cable beyond the braze.
BTW, last week we used the latest incarnation of my Break-O-Tron to demonstrate tensile testing to an Intro to Aeronautics class. The kids loved it!
http://www.hpaircraft.com/.../update_7_may_07.htm
Thanks again, Bob "BoKu" K.
|
|
|
|
|
jonapprill
May 8, 2007, 5:24 PM
Post #96 of 354
(21216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 13, 2004
Posts: 42
|
OK, I really hate to add to all this arm-chair engineering (mental masturbation?) that's going on, but.....
the guys at Nomad Ventures mentioned that CCH was assembling 2 cam assemblies on one SS cable and tension testing both assemblies at the same time. Once the unit passed testing, the SS cable was cut in half and the loops for each cam were then swaged. Perhaps this explains why no one noticed that the SS cable in this failed unit was longer than it was supposed to be....
|
|
|
|
|
climbxclimb
May 8, 2007, 5:35 PM
Post #97 of 354
(21188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 80
|
Well, I think I made my decision...
Given the recent facts, I decided to sell my Aliens and not climb on them anymore, I will buy C3 although I preferred Alien...
In addition to this, I have 2 friends just starting to put together their trad rack, and I will suggest them not to buy Alien for sure..to save some money and possibly their life in the future...
CCH is not a serious business anymore, they should be out of the market!
And BTW, I climb at the Gunks...
(This post was edited by climbxclimb on May 14, 2007, 1:44 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
May 8, 2007, 6:01 PM
Post #98 of 354
(21163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
jonapprill wrote: OK, I really hate to add to all this arm-chair engineering (mental masturbation?) that's going on, but..... the guys at Nomad Ventures mentioned that CCH was assembling 2 cam assemblies on one SS cable and tension testing both assemblies at the same time. Once the unit passed testing, the SS cable was cut in half and the loops for each cam were then swaged. Perhaps this explains why no one noticed that the SS cable in this failed unit was longer than it was supposed to be....
But if this was the assembly method, I HIGHLY doubt the end that resulted in this failed cam would have passed their tension testing during assembly.
I agree, noone could, would or should buy CCH, but in a few years I wouldn't mind seeing "BD Aliens" or "Trango Aliens" or "OP Aliens" Buy the singular design, leave the company and all it's troubles alone.
(This post was edited by wideguy on May 8, 2007, 6:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 8, 2007, 6:40 PM
Post #99 of 354
(21098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/alien_news.html
It looks like the only pull test the CABLES not the cam after it is built.. so what the fuck good does that do when they can't put their shit together correctly??
I think this is a major issue and CCH should be emailed and called about this in an even more major way than last time. what they claimed they were going to do and what they are actually doing is completely different. The testing they are doing now would not prevent any of the failures we have seen so far
Woohoo.. the cable they bought wont break.. DUHH thats probably because the company they got it from pull tested batches before sending it to them
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
May 8, 2007, 6:44 PM
Post #100 of 354
(21086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
Wink, wink....Nudge. We just said we pull tested. We didn't say what we pull tested exactly. Now pull my finger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
