|
|
|
|
acherry
May 11, 2007, 1:14 AM
Post #176 of 354
(20588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2004
Posts: 105
|
Alex,
I totally and completely agree that a company should not be selling goods that do not live up to the safety standards to which they claim to adhere. That being said, I also agree with Gabe in that I think we all have to be skeptical of the gear to which we're trusting our lives.
There was a day over this past winter when the other Boston Alex I know brought one of his tricams into the gym for show and tell. I don't remember how it happened, but at some point he gently nudged the curled up metal pin that holds the sling to the tricam head. It popped out! Like, I played with it and it fit barely tight enough to prevent the pin from sliding out if you turned the tricam on its side.
My point here, is that just because you don't know anyone who's had x piece of gear fail due to shoddy manufacturing doesn't mean that it can't happen.
It never hurts to be suspect of either trad gear; or even bolts for that matter. I'd rather be able to keep climbing rather than be a quadriplegic and will a boat load of money from suing CCH. (Ok, maybe an envelope full of money.)
I think I'll test the crap out of my aliens with a big rock (like Gabe just did with his - Utube links to follow). And still not fall on them.
~a
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
May 11, 2007, 1:46 AM
Post #177 of 354
(20559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
In reply to: 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.
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Fact: If you're pushing your limits at all, you will fall at some point.
Fact: You count on ONE rope, ONE harness, and ONE belay device to keep you from decking. And whether you'll admit it or not, one piece is often all that's between us and a ledge, a factor 2 fall, or the like. All the forethought in the world means nothing if your gear doesn't do what it's supposed to. Aliens are certified to hold a certain load, if they don't, and you deck because of it, whose fault is it 
Would *I* have one alien as the only piece keeping me off the deck? Hell no. But that doesn't make it right that they produce a defective product and market it as trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
112
May 11, 2007, 1:55 AM
Post #178 of 354
(20545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
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. Of course the cam shouldn't blow up but that really isn't relevant to the injury.
This is true, but I remember reading about another peice pulling. Realize this guy had 2 peices fail. 1 his fault the 2nd is bullsh*t. The dude had an extremley bad day! I do not need to know anymore about the injury. I just feel bad for the guy. :(
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 11, 2007, 2:13 AM
Post #179 of 354
(20527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
soillclimber wrote: Yes it was stamped "tensile tested." Which there is no way that it was...
Well, that's probably "three strikes" for CCH, as far as I'm concerned. When we go from mere incompetence to fraudulent misrepresentation I'm certainly done.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 11, 2007, 2:32 AM
Post #180 of 354
(20508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
curt wrote: soillclimber wrote: Yes it was stamped "tensile tested." Which there is no way that it was... Well, that's probably "three strikes" for CCH, as far as I'm concerned. When we go from mere incompetence to fraudulent misrepresentation I'm certainly done. Curt
???
I don't think that there is any probably about that. 
|
|
|
|
|
chalkfree
May 11, 2007, 2:41 AM
Post #181 of 354
(20506 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 512
|
Sorry dude, but sometimes on 11d gear all that's between you and the deck is one good piece and some bad ones. It's a risk you run, but that good piece better be worth weight, and looking at those shots any rated cam should have held. I can't say I think that's his fault, and I can't believe that's what Im reading here.
We're talking about 11d gear here people, not some fucking 5.3 hand crack. It takes energy to sew a climb up. Anybody who's saying they always has two pieces between themselves and the ground has never lead a climb and certainly hasn't pushed it to 11 on gear.
|
|
|
|
|
112
May 11, 2007, 1:47 PM
Post #182 of 354
(20405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 432
|
^^^ Agree the piece should have held, imo.
My point was that, in my understanding, it was NOT the only piece between him and the ground. And thanks for the 11d lecture, but I have done 5.5X - no pieces between me and the ground. I know about single pieces between the ground and I, intimately.
I wanted to squash the multiple-piece argument, because this discussion is about a bunk piece of life safety equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
May 11, 2007, 2:02 PM
Post #183 of 354
(20379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
healyje wrote: Mistakes, even recalls happen, but for a cam stamped '307' to fail after the miscues of the past two years, well - there really is nothing whatsoever left to say - the defective cams speak for themselves. It is clear at this point that self-help is not the answer to the woes besetting CCH. If you're going to use Aliens then the responsibility has now officially passed on to you. And if I was you ( and I am for these purposes) I'd do just what Maldaly said he was going to do - get a hammer and funkness and do your own damn testing. Get on'em or get down.
I absolutely agree. I loved using aliens....loved it!!....just like many people.... but after the NUMEROUS "incidents" involving aliens I have hung mine in the basement.. They'll never see the light of day again, unless I get into 3' high slacklining.... :)
I just don't get why anyone would continue to use this product....It was good... but not good enough to risk my life for even a second.
Honestly I think it is a waste of time to even discuss it....they now have a history of faulty "life saving" devices.... IMHO you're an idiot if you still use aliens....
my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 11, 2007, 2:10 PM
Post #184 of 354
(20365 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dynosore wrote: Would *I* have one alien as the only piece keeping me off the deck? Hell no. But that doesn't make it right that they produce a defective product and market it as trustworthy.
No. Where you get off thinking that I'm apologizing for CCH is beyond me. Your reading comprehension is nil. I'm done arguing with you.
Alex: I take your point that such lawsuits may serve the greater good in keeping the population safer than they'd otherwise be. But this isn't about greater good. This is about *my* safety, *your* safety, and that of the people we love. Let's say the threat of public action results in cams that are good 9999 out of 10000 times. That's a damn good cam! But even so, someone's got that one in 10000 cam that's a dud. And you know what? If it's on my rack, and Allison falls on it, and it fails, all the percentages in the world, all the lawsuits, that reduced the risk, and the lawsuits yet to come - none of that will keep me from being devastated if she gets seriously hurt or worse.
So when i hand my rack over to Allison, or when i get on the sharp end, part of the responsibility of being a true leader is having done the due diligence of knowing that the gear we're going to use is acceptably safe. That is *my* responsibility, no-one else's.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 11, 2007, 2:11 PM
Post #185 of 354
(20363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
112 wrote: ^^^ Agree the piece should have held, imo. My point was that, in my understanding, it was NOT the only piece between him and the ground. And thanks for the 11d lecture, but I have done 5.5X - no pieces between me and the ground. I know about single pieces between the ground and I, intimately. I wanted to squash the multiple-piece argument, because this discussion is about a bunk piece of life safety equipment.
Yes, there was a piece below him, but it was in a shitty flake that was highly suspect from the get go. I think "the 11d lecture" makes a good point. Not every route is G rated. The risk on that climb should have been getting to the bomber yellow alien placement, not climbing above it. Would I back up a piece that I finally sunk after a SERIOUS runout, or lots of sketch gear? You bet your ass. Do I climb 11d trad? No F---ing way. So I know that I'm not qualified to pass judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
May 11, 2007, 2:17 PM
Post #186 of 354
(20352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
curt wrote: soillclimber wrote: Yes it was stamped "tensile tested." Which there is no way that it was... Well, that's probably "three strikes" for CCH, as far as I'm concerned. When we go from mere incompetence to fraudulent misrepresentation I'm certainly done. Curt
Yeah, the "tensile" testing is getting me too. I'm only three cams deep into the apparently evil Alien empire, but I've been reluctant to give up on them. I contemplated having them tested by the co., but that won't tell me a damn thing. I've enjoyed using mine and others', but a great design isn't worth risking my life to manufacturer error. I do enough ill-advised shit as it is. Fortunately, I actually like C3s (not the price), and I'll try out some of the others (zeros, tcus). Sorry CCH, looks like you've lost at least a couple hundred bones from this climber 
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
May 11, 2007, 2:18 PM
Post #187 of 354
(20348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
In reply to: 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: So when i hand my rack over to Allison, or when i get on the sharp end, part of the responsibility of being a true leader is having done the due diligence of knowing that the gear we're going to use is acceptably safe. That is *my* responsibility, no-one else's.
So genius, what if someone makes a batch of bad ropes and you just happen to be the first one it fails on? How do you factor that in? Admit it, we count on the CERTIFIED gear we buy to be as strong as it says it is. Your "logic" is pathetic. I worked in manufacturing QC for years, and you'd be laughed out of the room with your foolishness in ANY industry. "Duh it's not OUR fault your Pinto exploded in a minor wreck, you should have saw on the news that this is a common problem duh duh"
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 11, 2007, 2:18 PM
Post #188 of 354
(20347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Altelis, I'm sorry, but in your "B" scenario, let's say that was an Alien you haven't tested, you screwed up just as bad as in "A", and you know it.
This acceptable versus unacceptable nonsense - save it for the courtroom. It doesn't do me a bit of good on the rock.
That said, I hope CCH sells their business and someone else makes Aliens. Damn good design, but I won't buy another made by CCH. Too much trouble testing 'em!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 11, 2007, 2:23 PM
Post #189 of 354
(20338 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dynosore - didn't you hear me? I'm done with you.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
nnowinowski
May 11, 2007, 2:28 PM
Post #190 of 354
(20325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 84
|
I do climb 11d trad and I do place doubles if there is a bomber spot between two runouts. Biners breaks and spit happens. Thin gear is very light. I'm not passing judgment on anyone this is just what I do and I can be a bit of a pansy.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 11, 2007, 2:58 PM
Post #192 of 354
(20276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
azrockclimber wrote: I just don't get why anyone would continue to use this product....It was good... but not good enough to risk my life for even a second.
It's only the ones made in the past couple years that are in question. There is zero question about earlier production that have logged countless falls over the years.
That this was an 11d R or X route is all the more reason not to trust a single placement, no matter what it was. Arguing otherwise is idiotic. People here have waaay too much faith in gear. Biners break all the time, shit happens, be ready for it.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
May 11, 2007, 2:58 PM
Post #193 of 354
(20276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
bobruef wrote: 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.
So if you sell 'em knowing there's a possibility they're mank, and the buyer experiences a gear failure, are you liable? I submit the best option may be to take a hammer to 'em. (And this is not one of those "if you don't trust 'em, send' em to me" responses.)
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
May 11, 2007, 3:07 PM
Post #194 of 354
(20264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
yo, cracklover, no hate here, just fleshing some things out (i'm a philosopher and i tend to arrive at final judgement after lengthy back and forth....)
here's my thought, at least for right now:
there are simply way too many links in the safety chain, way too many things that i count on as a sole item between me and dead me. things like a single belay device, single locking biner, single belay loop, single rope. next there are all those biners that work in redundancy with each other (the quickdraws each have 2 biners and some webbing, the actual piece of gear, etc).
i see how i could bounce test the gear. how do i test the rope? how do i test a biner? a belay device? a belay loop, swami, etc. on a harness? now assuming that we can find reasonable and non price exlusive means of doing all these test, is it still reasonable to test all this? for your average trad climber you are looking at, at the minimum, 30 biners, a belay device, a harness, a rope, and 20 odd pieces of gear. every time you add something to your rack you must test it?
i'm not trying to be mean, but honestly, do you test your harness before you use it? do you test your rope? your biners and your belay device?
i would posit it is equally irresponisble to not test these items as to not test your gear. therefore, with a little logical rearrangement (which actually doesn't work, but in logic as argument it actually does....go figure) it is equally responible to test none of it.
and to save a little time. YES, this is a slipperly slope argument. HOWEVER, any basic logic and argumentation class will teach you that being a slipperly slope argument in and of itself does not make it wrong. and in this case i believe it is a valid and sound argument to be made.
much love
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 11, 2007, 3:30 PM
Post #195 of 354
(20227 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
altelis wrote: yo, cracklover, no hate here, just fleshing some things out (i'm a philosopher and i tend to arrive at final judgement after lengthy back and forth....)
You bet - absolutely no hate felt here either - I think we're all on the same side, just debating our perspectives.
In reply to: i see how i could bounce test the gear. how do i test the rope? how do i test a biner? a belay device? a belay loop, swami, etc. on a harness?
Number 1 factor in determining if a piece of gear is good or not is the reliability of the manufacturer. So let's say a manufacturer generally knows how to make a piece of nylon webbing that's good. Still, occasionally, I know they've sold spools of webbing with a join that's just taped together. People have sold this webbing without realizing, and people have climbed on it without realizing, and fallen to their deaths when the join fails.
So that brings me to number 2: Inspection. I want to insure that the *probably* reliable gear I've bought doesn't have an issue. In the case of the webbing, I'll inspect the whole thing once, checking for anything that looks out of the ordinary. Okay but that's easier to do with webbing or a harness, or even a nut, than it is to do with a cam that has a braze that probably can't even be adequately inspected with an x-ray machine.
That brings me to number 3: Anything that can't be adequately inspected, has to be tested, at least once.
Does that answer your question? i don't claim the above to be a perfect system - it's just what I need to do to feel confident enough in the reliability of my gear.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
May 11, 2007, 4:23 PM
Post #197 of 354
(20146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
ok, see. now i'm on board.
but, for the record, what you said here is different than what you said before.
before: test all gear or you are irresponible.
now: inspect once (assuming a reliable company, if not a reliable company, you're the fool for buying them in the first place). if visual inspection seems iffy or not reliable, give the gear (assuming a piece of pro) a quick test.
fleshed out, your point makes sense, and i agee.
cool. enjoy yosemite!
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
May 11, 2007, 5:22 PM
Post #198 of 354
(20097 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
translation: I'm a spoiled baby who can't admit I'm wrong, good luck in life crackhead
|
|
|
|
|
climboard
May 11, 2007, 5:34 PM
Post #199 of 354
(20078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2001
Posts: 503
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: azrockclimber wrote: I just don't get why anyone would continue to use this product....It was good... but not good enough to risk my life for even a second. It's only the ones made in the past couple years that are in question. There is zero question about earlier production that have logged countless falls over the years.
Not in my mind. Until they do their homework and get to the root cause of all these issues, I'd consider any cam manufactured by them suspect.
While it is less likely that earlier models suffered the same defect(s) due the lack of reported failures, their lack of QC before the recall precludes anyone from determining the defect didn't affect earlier models.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 11, 2007, 5:46 PM
Post #200 of 354
(20060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
To possibly bring some new thoughts to this discussion...
1. This failure scares me; and not just for CCH. It makes me worried about brazing, which includes Metolius ultralights. Fortunately I have more confidence in metolius' testing, but brazing... it's a chemical process and a metal bond, and how the cable is positioned in the receiver [hopefully fully, as has been stated]. Does the brazing process worry anyone else other than me after this?
2. You know DMM doesn't braze at all; they've got a pined axel. Not as good for placing, I know, but maybe Euroford can help throw in some bones for DMM here :D At least they're not brazed!
3. I feel the need to test every cam I have, regardless of brand, after this and other previous issues. Ultimately, this makes me, like Cracklover has been saying, know what I'm climbing on and that I CAN trust it to what I've tested it too. People, TEST YOUR GEAR!!! It's not worth a broken or dead someone, whether it's just a friend of mine, me, or someone that I heard about online. Errors will happen in the process of making a cam, [and more often with CCH] and they will occasionally escape QC, and they will occasionally get fallen on, and occasionally it won't be a backed up piece. And when all of those factors come together, you'll be screwed. You're not responsible for gear failing, period. But you are responsible for doing everything you can through preparation to make sure what manufacturing people label is true! Protect yourself; you now know what has happened with some gear! It will happen again so make sure you've done everything you can do!
Peter
ps- so, after my self-protection schpeeeeel, what other cams, esp. small ones, don't rely on brazing? C3s? Zeros? DMM doesn't make them very small :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
