|
bobruef
May 10, 2007, 4:53 PM
Post #151 of 354
(20279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
mine all got a little bouncing immediately after the first alien ripped apart.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 10, 2007, 5:04 PM
Post #152 of 354
(20261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
bobruef wrote: Don't put them away just yet,  it wouldn't let me delete that part of my listing. It would only let me add. So I added a disclaimer citing recent events regarding CCH.
Just cancel the auction and start over. Only costs you the listing fee, so maybe a buck.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 10, 2007, 5:10 PM
Post #153 of 354
(20243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: bobruef wrote: Don't put them away just yet, it wouldn't let me delete that part of my listing. It would only let me add. So I added a disclaimer citing recent events regarding CCH. Just cancel the auction and start over. Only costs you the listing fee, so maybe a buck.
I looked for that option first, I don't think you can cancel an auction that already has bids though.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 10, 2007, 5:14 PM
Post #154 of 354
(20229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
reg wrote: cracklover wrote: But there's really only one lesson to be learned from this, and it's one that all trad climbers (myself included) should have known already: You are responsible for your own safety. Period. i'm not a lawyer (but i play one .......) " you are responsible....." is true and not true. you are to blame for your mistakes but not those of others. liability issues are in courts all the time. if cch says they tested to this and that and they are made this way and that etc then, if they are not, cch is liable. hopefully the climber will not be injured and can sue for damages. if i place a cam wrong - i screwed. if cch flubs up construction - i'm sueing. i guess "being ultimately responsible" means paying the ultimate price for some elses negligence. edit: i'm suein to make the industry (cch - et al) get their act together and do it right or pay big bucks
Gear failure or not, it's still the leaders responsibility to place sufficient gear to prevent decking. Relying on a single small cam, no matter what brand, is never acceptable when looking at a ground fall. Sounds like this route mostly gets TR'd because it's difficult to protect so it still is pilot error. Of course the cam shouldn't blow up but that really isn't relevant to the injury.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
May 10, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #155 of 354
(20220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: reg wrote: cracklover wrote: But there's really only one lesson to be learned from this, and it's one that all trad climbers (myself included) should have known already: You are responsible for your own safety. Period. i'm not a lawyer (but i play one .......) " you are responsible....." is true and not true. you are to blame for your mistakes but not those of others. liability issues are in courts all the time. if cch says they tested to this and that and they are made this way and that etc then, if they are not, cch is liable. hopefully the climber will not be injured and can sue for damages. if i place a cam wrong - i screwed. if cch flubs up construction - i'm sueing. i guess "being ultimately responsible" means paying the ultimate price for some elses negligence. edit: i'm suein to make the industry (cch - et al) get their act together and do it right or pay big bucks Gear failure or not, it's still the leaders responsibility to place sufficient gear to prevent decking. Relying on a single small cam, no matter what brand, is never acceptable when looking at a ground fall. Sounds like this route mostly gets TR'd because it's difficult to protect so it still is pilot error. Of course the cam shouldn't blow up but that really isn't relevant to the injury.
i see yer point and agree.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
May 10, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #156 of 354
(20220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
So what is the deal with having the cam looked at by an independent metalurgist? I just talked to Dave at CCH to try and get some info from his perspective.
He says he has been trying to get the cam sent to an independent metalurgist, by the person reporting the failure is not responding at all or sending the cam for analysis. Why?
He also said his requests for details (age of rope and how many falls it has had, belay set up, etc) have not been answered. He doesn't read rc.com or other forums and wants info from the source, which is reasonable. So pinsandbons, why aren't you participating as much as possible to get this resolved instead of whipping up an online frenzy? I think he and CCH could be handling this much better...
Anyway, Dave said he will put some info on their site, not here. He didn't think there was any weight behind the theory that the cable had not been fully inserted for brazing. It seemed like his ideas were the wire being pulled over the crack right at the braze, or the fall somehow generating more force than one would initially expect. The latter was the conclusion from the Metolius failure gramps posted, so I guess I won't think it is grasping at straws yet. He wouldn't guess at a scenario though without more information and testing, he just tossed out a few ideas.
As for their testing, a length of cable is cut and the top (I forgot what he called it) of the cam is brazed onto both ends. This is what is pull tested. After it passes, the cable is cut and swaged (stamped tensile tested), and the lobes/etc are attached.
(This post was edited by mojomonkey on May 10, 2007, 5:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 10, 2007, 5:22 PM
Post #157 of 354
(20213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
bobruef wrote: roy_hinkley_jr wrote: Just cancel the auction and start over. Only costs you the listing fee, so maybe a buck. I looked for that option first, I don't think you can cancel an auction that already has bids though.
Sure you can, just look for the form and enter the number. Give the reason as a problem with the listing. You can cancel any auction up till the last day even if there are bids.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 10, 2007, 5:25 PM
Post #158 of 354
(20205 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
ok, I'll look for that, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
wings
May 10, 2007, 5:29 PM
Post #159 of 354
(20198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 283
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: Gear failure or not, it's still the leaders responsibility to place sufficient gear to prevent decking. Relying on a single small cam, no matter what brand, is never acceptable when looking at a ground fall. Sounds like this route mostly gets TR'd because it's difficult to protect so it still is pilot error.
I agree.
In reply to: Of course the cam shouldn't blow up but that really isn't relevant to the injury.
I disagree.
Good judgement could have reduced the chance of the climber decking. Good judgement could not have reduced the chance of the cam failing. Having the good judgement to place multiple pieces, to only have them all fail due to manufacturing defects, does not change the outcome.
I realize I'm speaking on some hypothetical terms here, but this was a case where good judgement would not have necessarily prevented the accident from occurring.
I think what we all want is to be able to exercise good judgement and stay safe. Perhaps good judgement now entails placing multiple brands of protection between oneself and the ground. I think this is a relatively new idea.
- Seyil
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 10, 2007, 7:41 PM
Post #160 of 354
(20064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
reg wrote: cracklover wrote: soillclimber wrote: Yes it was stamped "tensile tested." I said it a year ago, and I'll say it again: Yes, it sucks that CCH has poor quality control. But there's really only one lesson to be learned from this, and it's one that all trad climbers (myself included) should have known already: You are responsible for your own safety. Period. GO i'm not a lawyer (but i play one .......) " you are responsible....." is true and not true. you are to blame for your mistakes but not those of others.
What the fuck are you talking about? I don't give a shit about blame! I care a hell of a lot about not being dead.
If you don't trust a piece, do not climb over it. If you trust it enough to climb over it, and it fails, well you messed up in your assumption, didn't you.
As for my test rig: Basically, making a thin cord into a 3-4kN fuse, and dropping enough weight to either bust the fuse or the cam. I'm not going to go into more detail than that.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
May 10, 2007, 7:51 PM
Post #161 of 354
(20051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
following your line of logic, why not "assume" 2 cams are gonna fail? or 3? or your rope for that matter!??! "Gee, you should have been climbing on doubles, it's YOUR fault your rope broke under a small load even though it's rated to hold much more duh duh duh"
when you pay for an item that is rated to xkn, it sure as heck better not fall apart under little more than body weight, that's no one's fault but the manufacturer!!
(This post was edited by dynosore on May 10, 2007, 7:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
reg
May 10, 2007, 7:58 PM
Post #162 of 354
(20037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
cracklover wrote: What the fuck are you talking about? I don't give a shit about blame! I care a hell of a lot about not being dead. If you don't trust a piece, do not climb over it. If you trust it enough to climb over it, and it fails, well you messed up in your assumption, didn't you.
so if the 10k cam fails at 1k cause it was poorly made and the company didn't care - that's your fault? of course not - nor is it your "responsibility" - you just suffer the consequences - don't you?
cracklover wrote: As for my test rig: Basically, making a thin cord into a 3-4kN fuse, and dropping enough weight to either bust the fuse or the cam. I'm not going to go into more detail than that. GO
i didn't ask ya about ur rig but think that's a great idea - i'd put a bit larger "fuse" in - like 5-6k
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 10, 2007, 8:08 PM
Post #163 of 354
(20022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dynosore wrote: following your line of logic, why not "assume" 2 cams are gonna fail?
Because that would be a stupid assumption, that's why. Look, this is not a hard concept - turn on your brain, realize that when you're on the sharp end, the only thing keeping you from being dead is you making the right choices.
Look, after their record, I'm never going to assume an alien I climb on is good for more of a load than I've personally tested it for. With a BD camalot, I'll put more stock in their figures, but of course I'll inspect the cam and do some bounce testing on it. But those are my choices, and i take full responsibility for the outcome of those.
In reply to: ... or 3? or your rope for that matter!??! "Gee, you should have been climbing on doubles, it's YOUR fault your rope broke under a small load even though it's rated to hold much more duh duh duh" when you pay for an item that is rated to xkn, it sure as heck better not fall apart under little more than body weight, that's no one's fault but the manufacturer!!
You just don't get it do you. Liability has nothing to do with it. Trad climbing is about taking a calculated risk and assuming the personal responsibility that comes with it. If you mess up, it's you and your loved ones who'll pay the ultimate price.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
May 10, 2007, 8:14 PM
Post #164 of 354
(20005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
reg wrote: cracklover wrote: As for my test rig: Basically, making a thin cord into a 3-4kN fuse, and dropping enough weight to either bust the fuse or the cam. I'm not going to go into more detail than that. GO i didn't ask ya about ur rig but think that's a great idea - i'd put a bit larger "fuse" in - like 5-6k
Anybody know what the safety factor for cord is? 5-6 k might be high enough that, if the cord happens to hold to say twice its rated strength, you are getting over the rated strength of an alien.
I've been looking for a deal on wild country zeros.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 10, 2007, 8:14 PM
Post #165 of 354
(20004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
reg wrote: cracklover wrote: What the fuck are you talking about? I don't give a shit about blame! I care a hell of a lot about not being dead. If you don't trust a piece, do not climb over it. If you trust it enough to climb over it, and it fails, well you messed up in your assumption, didn't you. so if the 10k cam fails at 1k cause it was poorly made and the company didn't care - that's your fault? of course not - nor is it your "responsibility" - you just suffer the consequences - don't you?
Every time you get on the sharp end, you take ultimate responsibility for your safety and the safety of your partner. The fact that you're taking the time to get educated about the relative safety of different brands of cam shows that you're on the right track.
In reply to: cracklover wrote: As for my test rig: Basically, making a thin cord into a 3-4kN fuse, and dropping enough weight to either bust the fuse or the cam. I'm not going to go into more detail than that. GO i didn't ask ya about ur rig but think that's a great idea - i'd put a bit larger "fuse" in - like 5-6k
No, I was responding to someone else who did ask. And you're welcome to test your gear however you like.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
reg
May 10, 2007, 8:32 PM
Post #166 of 354
(19978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
"crackloverquote wrote: Every time you get on the sharp end, you take ultimate responsibility for your safety and the safety of your partner.
we're playin the simantics game - i agree fully with what your saying in concept but if your cam fails (and you live) because of a manufacturing defect and you can prove....aw never mind. your right it's all our fault. let um make shoddy equipment - you'll test them to 3kn and feel good climbin past.
i say: if i can, i'll nail um to the wall with a lawsuit. make um scared enough to do the right thing or get out of the business.
(This post was edited by reg on May 10, 2007, 8:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 10, 2007, 8:32 PM
Post #167 of 354
(19977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
hey bob,
when you mail those out, be sure to draw a little skull and crossbones on the box. hahahaha
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 10, 2007, 8:57 PM
Post #168 of 354
(19949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
caughtinside wrote: hey bob, when you mail those out, be sure to draw a little skull and crossbones on the box. hahahaha
No Joke.
In all honesty, I'll probably suffer from seller's remorse after unoading them. I bounced them pretty good myself, and was confident in them. The fact that I climbed on them at all durring this ruccus says something about the quality of their design. In the end though, what made me want to get rid of them was that extra degree of uncertainty brought on by this new failure. It no longer looks like there are "good aliens" and "bad aliens". How do you know that yours aren't just "pretty good" or "ok aliens".
I've got a set of TCUs, and will probably end up getting either another set, or some C3s. (flashback to me turning my nose up at the idea of spending 70 dollars for a cam). I'm not a huge fan of zeros.
It's Jay's fault that I'm getting rid of them though: every time I look at them hanging in my closet, all I can see is slung wineglasses 
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 10, 2007, 9:05 PM
Post #169 of 354
(19935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
And that, my friends, is the power of the metaphor. (Too bad you can't sling metaphors. Probably be stronger than Aliens.)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 10, 2007, 9:11 PM
Post #170 of 354
(19924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Gabe, I agree, especially at this point in the conversation. If anybody here climbs above an Alien (or any piece that was placed before being tested) and gets hurt because of it, it really is their own damned fault. If I learned anything from all this, it's not to blindly trust any of my gear. Like the man said, folks, trad really does up the personal responsibility factor. If you don't want to accept that, the RDB is chocked full of perfectly good sport crags.
That said, when an SLCD falls apart, accept the responsibility for your safety, but feel free to be pissed... if you're still alive and cognitive.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 10, 2007, 9:18 PM
Post #171 of 354
(19909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
j_ung wrote: Like the man said, folks, trad really does up the personal responsibility factor. If you don't want to accept that, the RDB is chocked full of perfectly good sport crags.
Sport has risks too if you have blind faith in gear. Trusting a single non-locking carabiner to keep you from hitting the ground is no smarter than trusting a single cam or nut.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 10, 2007, 9:21 PM
Post #172 of 354
(19906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: j_ung wrote: Like the man said, folks, trad really does up the personal responsibility factor. If you don't want to accept that, the RDB is chocked full of perfectly good sport crags. Sport has risks too if you have blind faith in gear. Trusting a single non-locking carabiner to keep you from hitting the ground is no smarter than trusting a single cam or nut.
I'm with you on the particular there, but I'll stick w/ Jay on the general theme.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 10, 2007, 9:22 PM
Post #173 of 354
(19903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
bobruef wrote: roy_hinkley_jr wrote: j_ung wrote: Like the man said, folks, trad really does up the personal responsibility factor. If you don't want to accept that, the RDB is chocked full of perfectly good sport crags. Sport has risks too if you have blind faith in gear. Trusting a single non-locking carabiner to keep you from hitting the ground is no smarter than trusting a single cam or nut. I'm with you on the particular there, but I'll stick w/ Jay on the general theme.
Actually, I think I'll go with that, myself.
|
|
|
|
|
burrito
May 10, 2007, 10:39 PM
Post #174 of 354
(19834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2006
Posts: 108
|
cracklover wrote: Look, this is not a hard concept - turn on your brain, realize that when you're on the sharp end, the only thing keeping you from being dead is you making the right choices. . . . Liability has nothing to do with it. Trad climbing is about taking a calculated risk and assuming the personal responsibility that comes with it. If you mess up, it's you and your loved ones who'll pay the ultimate price. GO
Gabe, you know I love ya, but I gotta disagree that the climber bears ALL of the responsibility for his or her safety.
As one who sincerely hates frivolous lawsuits, I'm still pretty sure this is why the concept of products liability was invented. (And yes, also why the concept of contributory negligence was invented.) But if a company puts a product into the stream of commerce, makes certain promises about that product's performance, and then ultimately fails to deliver, it should face the consequences.
This isn't about blame so much as quality control and deterrence - it's bad business to sell crap. (Well, no one would buy *real* crap. But there's a reason for that, eh?) Yes, people sue in order to get money because they feel they were "wronged." But some of them also sue because they genuinely hope that what happens to them, through no real fault of their own, doesn't happen to someone else.
I didn't have the time or patience to read through this entire thread, and for that I'm sure I'll get electronically pummelled, as is the custom on this friendly site, but even assuming it was a bad placement, or it could have been backed up, or he ran it out too far, or he should have known not to trust an Alien, the bottom line is that it SHOULD NOT HAVE FAILED. And that is - possibly - no one's fault but the manufacturer's.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (and those who agreed with you), but that's my ten cents.
(Hops off soapbox.)
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
May 10, 2007, 10:53 PM
Post #175 of 354
(19824 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
gonna keep this short, BUT,
there is a very important difference between
a) understanding the risk i'm taking when i place a piece of gear in solid bomber granite to stop me from taking the ride to end all rides, coming off and having that bomber granite turn out to be crumbly, the PLACEMENT fails and i take that ride
b) understanding the risk i'm taking when i place a piece of gear in solid bomber granite to stop me from taking that ride to end all rides, coming off and having that bomber PIECE OF GEAR fail and i take that ride.
in a) my judgment turned out to be incorrrect about something that is out of our hands
in b) it wasn't my judgement about the rock (which SHOULD be the variable) that was wrong but rather my judgement about the MANUFACUTRING of a piece of gear.
there is a difference between a badly placed piece of gear coming out of a placement and a badly MADE piece of gear falling apart
the placement here was fine---so fine the lobes were still where they were placed----unfortunately the gear itself sucked major ass and came apart
a---part of the acceptable network of things that can go wrong: you, in the end, are to blame
b---NOT part of the acceptable network of things that can go wrong
when there are so many things out of our control in the climbing world that can go wrong why should we accept the controllable things going wrong?
short, huh? woops
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
