|
healyje
May 18, 2007, 8:35 PM
Post #251 of 354
(14192 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
bspisak wrote: healyje wrote: Brian, we are a year past such a meal... How much rope was out when the leader fell? How far above the alien was he? How far off the ground was the alien placed? What other pieces of gear were there and how were they placed? What type of bely device was being used? What make was the rope? How old was the rope? How many falls had it taken? What other relavent history? How old was the cam? How many other falls had it taken? All this data needs to be collected to come up with a clear picture of how much force was actually imparted to the cam in question. The cam should go to a metallurgist. Anything else is speculation. -
Brian, I suspect you are simply late to the game - as stated we're in year three now and the time is long past for such reasoned approaches - we've been down that road already.
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
May 18, 2007, 8:57 PM
Post #252 of 354
(14165 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
"Figuring out who is responsible for gear failure in a court of law is all well and good, but on the crag, what difference does it make? None."
I agree and disagree at the same time. (I'm an attorney, it's a job requirement to be able to argue both sides!).
I agree to the extent that you mean that ultimately, we each have to be responsible for our safety and exercise good judgment, and that the prospect of a good lawsuit is cold comfort while (and after, if you're lucky) hurtling towards the ground.
On the other hand, there are definitely some climbs with one good placement between you and the deck, at some point or another. If you know the placement is there (or can cliimb down), and it isn't in choss or otherwise questionable, I don't consider it bad judgment to choose to attempt the climb. Under those circumstances, you need to be able to -- and should be able to -- rely on the gear to perform as advertised. If the piece fails because of bad construction, I say it's the manufacturer's fault, not yours.
I also don't know that we'd be having this discussion if a "bomber" nut placement failed because the cable parted at some low fraction of its rated strength. Some people (rightly) tend to be a little more leary of cams, because there are more variables involved in how strong the placement is, some of which can't be as easily determined by visual inspection. So a lot of people are getting distracted by the (supposed) principle that you should never trust your life to just one piece. A lot of sports climbs would go by the wayside if that principle was strictly enforced.
But that's not the issue here: it wasn't a failure of the cam placement, but a failure of its construction. That's unacceptable. If other manufacturers can design and manufacture cams that don't fail in this fashion (and we're certainly assuming that they can, and do), then CCH deserves to be sued for making a defective product.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 18, 2007, 9:30 PM
Post #253 of 354
(14141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
retr2327 wrote: "...then CCH deserves to be sued for making a defective product.
If I was the one that had taken a fall and the gear failed and I grounded... well, if I was alive I'd at least want my medical expenses and lost time compensated. And if I'd died I'd want my family taken care of...
Hmmm, I've never ever considered suing someone before, BUT... it'll be interesting to see what pinsandbones does. What a crazy court case that would be if it ever made it to the bench without a settlement. We wouldn't even need a discussion thread on it anymore, we could just have a video-taped court case on the Video section of the site, LOL!
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 21, 2007, 4:25 AM
Post #254 of 354
(13982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
bspisak wrote: healyje wrote: Brian, we are a year past such a meal... How much rope was out when the leader fell? How far above the alien was he? How far off the ground was the alien placed? All this data needs to be collected to come up with a clear picture of how much force was actually imparted to the cam in question. The cam should go to a metallurgist. Anything else is speculation. -
You ever read anything but the title of these posts?
pinandbones wrote: "It was not a broken stem due to an edge or any other strange action on the cam. It was a vertical placement and broke at the head. Where it broke, was well into the crack. It was NOT A RECALLED ALIEN. I was seventy feet up or so when I fell from just a few feet above the piece. "
Seems to me, this is the important part of the guys post. The type of rope doesn't matter. This was as he describes it, a soft fall.
The piece failed. Failed. That means it broke. It broke well under rated strenght if the fall was acuratly described. If this was the only one, no biggie, but it wasn't. There was a recent identical type of failure on a purple at Indian Creek. Purples SHOULD fail at 3500lbs. It fell apart well under that as well. There were some well known people there for that one. It was not made up.
The history of this kind of crap is quite long.
Do I still climb on Aliens. Of course.
Do I want this bullshit to stop? Of course. Who wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 21, 2007, 5:06 AM
Post #255 of 354
(13963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
healyje wrote: psprings wrote: 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? I'd say you're getting a bit irrational at this point - brazing is not the problem - it's the lack of an effective quality process that is the problem. Ditto for swaged and sewn gear - all such gear needs to be produced within the context of a formal quality process and protocol which will catch bad gear and manufacturing problems.
Excellent point. If a bad job of brazing was indeed responsible for the failure of this particular cam, the poorly executed braze is merely a symptom of a much larger underlying problem at CCH. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with employing a braze to join the cable of a CCH cam to its head. As others have pointed out, when properly done, this brazed joint should be stronger than the cable itself. The real problem (that we should all be focusing on, in my opinion) is CCH not having nearly enough control over their own manufacturing processes.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 21, 2007, 5:50 AM
Post #256 of 354
(13941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
billcoe_ wrote: You ever read anything but the title of these posts?
I don't want to get into a flame war with you, but your comment seems out of line. If I wasn't inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'd assume you always jumped to conclusions.
billcoe_ wrote: The type of rope doesn't matter. This was as he describes it, a soft fall.
Maybe, maybe not. Give me the facts, not just some anonymously posted story, and perhaps I'll come to the same conclusion. My point is that the type of information available here isn't sufficient to prosecute in a court of law, nor, more importantly, is it sufficient to determine why the failure occurred. I'm getting this vision of a vigilante mob of incensed rock climbers consumed by rage and out for blood.
healyje wrote: Brian, I suspect you are simply late to the game - as stated we're in year three now and the time is long past for such reasoned approaches - we've been down that road already.
Actually, I have followed the various issues reported here (and elsewhere) wrt Aliens. Seems like the only truly validated reports were addressed by CCH with the recall. The rest of them are cirumstantial.
I'm a natural skeptic when it comes to info on the internet, but I'm not stupid either. Would I trust Aliens with my life? Hell no. Are they the best thing going for pin scars? Hell yes. That's why I'll probably send them back to CCH and have them tested. If they break I get new ones, if they don't, I'll test them again myself to make sure. Then they'll go on the aid rack where they work best.
But, all that is beside the point. My only comment was for this guy to get the cam back to CCH so they can do the right thing. If they have quality issues, they should be fixed before someone dies.
Then let CCH eat shit and die for all I care. That's the likely outcome from all the negative press anyhow.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 21, 2007, 6:07 AM
Post #257 of 354
(13929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Contrary to what everyone else seems to think, bspisak, I think your arguments are logical. You have said a lot of things in which I agree. Just throwing that one out there.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 21, 2007, 6:27 PM
Post #258 of 354
(13867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wideguy wrote: There is a reasonable expectation that goods manufactured and supposedly tested will perform as they are advertised and rated. Any time they fail in ways other than they should, the manufacturer shoulders that blame.
Sure, I agree with that 100%. My point is a separate one - not about blame. My point was that blame doesn't get you un-killed, so it's kinda useless for me as a leader.
In reply to: I agree that leaders, ultimately are on their own but you should have SOME expectation that if you do YOUR part right, your gear will do its.
Agreed. Some expectation. Not 100%, but some.
Anyway, I think my original point is well understood, and jay has spelled it out even more clearly. So...
Moving on to another issue at play that seems to really rankle people. Curt said it pretty well here:
In reply to: The real problem (that we should all be focusing on, in my opinion) is CCH not having nearly enough control over their own manufacturing processes.
We have an expectation that gear should have a much smaller failure rate than CCH gear has had over the last couple of years.
I was talking about this Aliens dilemma with a British guy sharing my campsite last weekend. He helps run the British Mountaineering Council. The BMC, like its European counterpoint, the UIAA, is an organization with the national importance to be able to regulate and give official reports on matters relating to climbing. For example, every climbing accident in the UK is investigated by them. When I told him about how CCH has denied that they'd done anything wrong, saying the cam should be sent to a metallurgist, and all this back and forth, he reminded me that in England, this would all be efficiently handled by the BMC as a matter of course. If a metallurgical analysis was required, they would find an independent metallurgist and get it done.
Remember how when the last Alien issue came up, it was only after Mountain Hardware stepped up and tested the cams on their shelves that anything real happened? And remember how Sterling Ropes stepped up and volunteered enormous amounts of time and resources in order for John Long to do his new groundbreaking research on anchors? Don't get me wrong - I'm grateful to those folks for their efforts, but how pitiful is it that we must rely on private industry to voluntarily do this kind of work in the US! It's ridiculous! It's a shame that in the US, the only national organization we have is the American Alpine Club, a weak organization that seems to do little more than publish the annual Accidents in North American Mountaineering.
It's true, we in the US don't have the climbing history of Europe or England, but you'd think that the climbing culture would now be far enough along that we could support a real national climbers organization with teeth, at least on the order of the Alpine Club of Canada. If we did, perhaps we could regulate our own manufacturers a little better, have a better way of learning from our mistakes when things go wrong, and have an organization capable of doing research on such things as modern anchor methods.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 21, 2007, 9:10 PM
Post #259 of 354
(13773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
bspisak wrote: healyje wrote: Brian, I suspect you are simply late to the game - as stated we're in year three now and the time is long past for such reasoned approaches - we've been down that road already. Actually, I have followed the various issues reported here (and elsewhere) wrt Aliens.
Brian, I have a hard time believing if you had actually followed along through this whole saga that you'd be making some of the statements and implications you are here. If you were on top of the history of the conversation you'd know that when I say CCH shouldn't be making cams that's a damn strong statement and a fairly radical departure from my previous posts here on RC. And just so we have it in one place here are the Alien threads to-date one should have covered to claim being "up to speed" on the conversation:
Feb 1, 2005 - CCH aliens are dangerous!
http://rockclimbing.com/...iewtopic.php?t=80507
Feb 2, 2005 - Responsible Gear Failure Postings
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...orum.cgi?post=993785
Feb 9, 2005 - CCH responds
http://rockclimbing.com/...iewtopic.php?t=81098
Oct 9, 2005 - Possible Problem with new CCH Aliens....
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1207666
Jan 2, 2006 - Orange Alien CCH
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104150
Jan 4, 2006 - CCH response to alleged defect
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104279
Jan 6, 2006 - REI recall Orange Alien
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104434
Jan 7, 2006 - CCH Alien reality check
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104756
Jan 10, 2006 - rei/mgear no longer selling aliens?
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104714
Jan 11, 2006 - Aliens Testing results by Mountain Gear
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1285954
Jan 12, 2006 - Alien Recall From CCH
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1288079
Feb 9, 2006 - REI Toughens Requirements for Climbing Gear
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...m/gforum.cgi?1309284
Feb 20, 2006 - Another Alien falls apart! Not a dimpled one.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1316740
Aug 21, 2006 - CCH Cam Failure
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1435781
Apr 24, 2006 - REI is back in the alien business!
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1363983
Aug 28, 2006 - My take on CCH...
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1439248
Aug 30, 2006 - CCH ALIENS -- For Immediate Release
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1440473
Apr 11, 2007 - Souders Crack (11d) ground fall
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1575796
Apr 18, 2007 - Props to Aliens
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1581070
May 1, 2007 - 2 new Post-recall Alien failures.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1589517
May 15, 2007 - ALIEN FAILURE, 5/15/07
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...m/gforum.cgi?1596942
(This post was edited by healyje on May 21, 2007, 9:13 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 21, 2007, 9:26 PM
Post #260 of 354
(13752 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
I agree with you cracklover.
What do you think needs to happen to get something like that started. Another way of stating what I am wanting to know... what qualities of American climbing have hindered an organization like the one you describe from developing? Why isn't there one? What would need to happen for one to develop?
|
|
|
|
|
soillclimber
May 21, 2007, 9:37 PM
Post #261 of 354
(13748 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 31
|
Brian,
As I posted previously and you must have overlooked (there are a bunch of posts)...the rope was a Beal (still one of the lowest impact forces of any rope) with about 60+ feet out.
On another note, Pins just spent a week going from PA to Yosemite. Now that he is in Yose, he will have even less access to the interweb. Just wanted to throw that out there. He is still getting the cam tested, but I have not spoken to him in a bit and don't know more than that. I will give any info I get it.
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 22, 2007, 7:52 AM
Post #262 of 354
(13665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
healyje wrote: I have a hard time believing if you had actually followed along through this whole saga that you'd be making some of the statements and implications you are here. […] And just so we have it in one place here are the Alien threads to-date one should have covered to claim being "up to speed" on the conversation:
Again, you get the benefit of the doubt. Just to make sure myself, I decided to waste a large part of my day rereading all of these posts. I’m now even more convinced than CCH is being lynched at any hint of a problem. Many of these failures that people keep citing were either unsubstantiated, proven to be a recall cam, or not a systemic QA issue.
Whatever. I’ll post what I found, and leave it up to the rest of you to decide for yourselves. Perhaps I missed something. Perhaps something more will come of this latest find. But, I’m done debating. I’m verging on being just as guilty at speculation as the rest of you. Let the facts come out and speak for themselves.
“The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it”
----
Feb 1, 2005 - CCH aliens are dangerous!
http://rockclimbing.com/...iewtopic.php?t=80507
Feb 2, 2005 - Responsible Gear Failure Postings
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...orum.cgi?post=993785
Feb 9, 2005 - CCH responds
http://rockclimbing.com/...iewtopic.php?t=81098
These threads are all referring to the same report of a braze failure 1-year prior to the recall. Interesting to note how this community reacted: inflammatory skepticism. Unfortunately, this seems the usual response to contrarian views. The OP is labeled a troll, the thread a hoax, and is eventually locked. Too bad if the OP wanted to respond to the accusations.
This was never resolved one way or the other. If this was indeed an early failure involving a recall cam, the negative response from rc.com may have chased this guy away. It was a year until this issue was “rediscovered.” How many people were put at risk due to lack of support from the community? It was an overwhelming groundswell of support for CCH to the extent this guy is labeled a liar. Interesting how things have shifted completely in the opposite direction. This is a mob mentality.
To CCH’s credit, they respond almost immediately to this report and ask that the cam immediately be sent in for testing. It never is. Everyone cheers CCH and their product.
----
Jan 2, 2006 - Orange Alien CCH
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104150
Jan 4, 2006 - CCH response to alleged defect
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104279
This is the cam that caused the recall. CCH responded to this failure within 1-day of being contacted by phone. The recall was issued less than a week after they received the cam and had it tested by an outside lab. It sounds like they did a great job of jumping all over the issue and getting the cams recalled.
Interesting to note how this first thread generated over 1900 (am I reading that right!?) of mostly arm chair speculation and uninformed ranting. Most of which was how bad a company CCH was for not responding an email during the New Year holiday. Once they were phoned, they were all over it. So, if a company doesn’t respond to email, they’re irresponsible?
With the previous year’s incident in mind, CCH asks that the cam be sent in or else they’ll consider it a hoax. After all, the same thing happened a year ago and the community all agreed it was a hoax. This comes back to haunt them as people pull the “infamous hoax response” out of context and forget the past history in order to roast CCH at the stake. No wonder they stopped posting on this site.
----
Oct 9, 2005 - Possible Problem with new CCH Aliens....
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1207666
Jan 6, 2006 - REI recall Orange Alien
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104434
Jan 10, 2006 - rei/mgear no longer selling aliens?
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104714
These threads are partially related to the improperly drilled axel hole and finally the REI recall. With respect to the axel issue, I had heard about this on this site (or perhaps ST) and had just received an orange alien for Xmas and lo’ and behold it was one that was incorrectly drilled. It went back to REI along with a letter to the store manager on all the related info.
This is certainly poor Quality Control, but people also fault CCH for not responding specifically to this issue. Perhaps CCH determined that the affected cams where covered by the general recall (this all happened around the same time.) Perhaps they determined that the only cams affected were sent to REI and REI issued the recall as well. Perhaps they found that only a few of these had actually been sold. Perhaps they did some analysis that showed holding power was not effected, just effective range.
I don’t know for sure, but neither does anyone else to the contrary. Yet, that doesn’t stop the arm-chair mechanical engineers from commenting ad-museum about how irresponsible CCH was.
At this point, it’s interesting to note how the community perception has shifted to the negative. One person mentions “the shitty response” to the original failure that caused the recall. Taken out of context, their response does sound harsh. However, as noted above, history is forgotten. Nevertheless, they responded within a day of the phone call. The cam was sent on 1/6. It had to be delivered and then tested. On 1/12, the recall is made. “Shitty response?” More uninformed bull. Less than a week after they are contacted about this failure, they have made the recall.
----
Jan 7, 2006 - CCH Alien reality check
http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104756
Jan 11, 2006 - Aliens Testing results by Mountain Gear
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1285954
Jan 12, 2006 - Alien Recall From CCH
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1288079
This is all still leading up to the recall. The first one is just a bunch of ranting about how CCH didn’t do anything. The cam was still in the mail! It only got sent on the 6th. Get a grip people.
Doesn’t really matter because on 1/12 the recall press release happened.
----
Feb 20, 2006 - Another Alien falls apart! Not a dimpled one.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1316740
This one was clearly a CCH fuckup, but it was not due to a general issue with poor quality control. This guy sends a cam in for some unrelated reason, and gets a new one back. Unfortunately, some stoopid secretary pulls a cam from the production floor; only she grabs it from a work in progress bin and not the finished Q/A checked bin. Yes, that should not happen, but it isn’t a sign of a systemic failure. It’s more a sign of a small company reeling from a recent recall that could cost their customers life or limb.
----
Feb 9, 2006 - REI Toughens Requirements for Climbing Gear
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...m/gforum.cgi?1309284
Apr 24, 2006 - REI is back in the alien business!
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1363983
Aug 28, 2006 - My take on CCH...
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1439248
Apr 18, 2007 - Props to Aliens
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1581070
This first link is broken, but the others provide no new information. Just more railing against CCH. One poster sums it up nicely: ”Recap: From TWO incidents, ONE of them being dramatic, we have wiped out YEARS of history of happy climbers that only swore by aliens […] Remember just a year ago CCH was THE SHIT. […] By FUD-ing so much, the only thing that will be achieved is that CCH will go under…”
----
Aug 21, 2006 - CCH Cam Failure
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1435781
Aug 30, 2006 - CCH ALIENS -- For Immediate Release
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1440473
This unsubstantiated Paradise Forks failure generates all kinds of nasty responses and hate messages about CCH. There is no information from the OP that indicates this wasn’t a recall cam. People seem to miss that point and lambaste CCH anyway.
In the end, it did turn out to be a recalled cam. That totally sucks; this guy was hurt because of a product failure that was indeed CCH’s fault. But, they had already issued the recall and publicized it the best they could. How can they possibly track down every single climber that may have a time bomb on their rack?
----
May 15, 2007 - ALIEN FAILURE, 5/15/07
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...m/gforum.cgi?1596942
This cam was found to be a recall cam. Nevertheless it is still being referred to as yet another incident of a post-recall cam failure. Check your facts people.
----
May 1, 2007 - 2 new Post-recall Alien failures.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1589517
Not sure which “2 new” failures are being referred to. One is related to this thread, the other? (Both links are to the same thread.) Perhaps it is the 5/15 cam? That one was a recall cam.
----
Apr 11, 2007 - Souders Crack (11d) ground fall
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1575796
Now back to this thread. There are some important unanswered questions here. Where's the cam? CCH has posted on their site asking that the guy send the cam in for analysis. It’s been a month. We keep hearing he’s too busy. What gives?
Please, please, please. If this is not a hoax, send the cam in for analysis. Lives are at stake. If you “don’t have the time” send it to me an I’ll personally deliver it to them.
----
“A wise man changes his mind, a fool never”
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 22, 2007, 8:23 AM
Post #263 of 354
(13658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Cross-posted from the other thread:
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian, dude, you are just plain not getting it are you?
Which part of it's way too late don't you get? There was
ample opportunity afforded CCH to turn things around
a year ago and they simply did not respond to that opportunity.
Look, an endless stream of folks have attempted to help
CCH out before and after this fiasco began, myself included.
Several attempts were made to buy them out to no avail.
All in all each attempt at assistance met with the same
lack of follow-through on the part of CCH.
Get a grip - even in climbing gear a company should get a
chance to effectively respond to a quality crisis; but especially
in climbing gear no company should ever get two for the same
crisis. If you have actually read all the threads to-date that
I posted links to you and then can still make the "lynching"
statement above then something is seriously wrong with either
your level of comprehension or your ability to interpret reality.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
May 22, 2007, 11:35 AM
Post #264 of 354
(13623 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
To Healyje:
I agree... I think that Brian is totally missing the point here.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
May 22, 2007, 12:10 PM
Post #265 of 354
(13611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
Healyje, obviously some people just love their aliens so much they will refuse to admit anything is wrong with the company that will affect their ability to get their favorite cam in the future. I wish them the best. Hopefully all their Aliens are older.
Aliens are a great design, no doubt. It's really a shame.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
May 22, 2007, 2:02 PM
Post #266 of 354
(13576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
bspisak wrote: How can they possibly track down every single climber that may have a time bomb on their rack?
OK, I just want to say this sentence is why I won't be buying any more Alien cams.
Kudos for doing such a thorough sifting of the rc.com "literature," Brian. However, you lose credibility because after every review of these incidents you add in a rationalization for CCH. Biased much? They're a small company, their secretary SNAFU'd, how can they track down every climber, and CCH doesn't want to fall victim to a hoax (shouldn't they presume every report isn't a hoax before ad-hoc labelling it such? How convenient for them). Maybe by the standards of proof you couldn't send CCH to the electric chair, but they're certainly going to be paying a judgment. Not in your court, however.
Why don't you apply your self-ascribed sense of skepticism to CCH? You've had personal experiences with Alien flaws, yet even that doesn't diminish you assuming the best of CCH and the worst of the "arm-chair mechanical engineers." I guess that makes you an "arm-chair apologist."
(This post was edited by zeke_sf on May 22, 2007, 2:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 22, 2007, 2:06 PM
Post #267 of 354
(13564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
So Brian.... how long have you worked for CCH?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 22, 2007, 2:07 PM
Post #268 of 354
(13560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
medicus wrote: I agree with you cracklover. What do you think needs to happen to get something like that started. Another way of stating what I am wanting to know... what qualities of American climbing have hindered an organization like the one you describe from developing? Why isn't there one? What would need to happen for one to develop?
I think the American Alpine Club is where we need to look for answers. Maybe this should branch off into a different thread?
At any rate, a few potential answers are: a lack of resources at the AAC; a lack of vision in the leadership at the AAC; or that the US climber population is just too splintered and individualistic to get behind any organization. Still, the AMGA and the Access Fund seem to be successful organizations in each of their arenas, showing that it is possible to have a working and powerful climbing organization in the US. Why the AAC has not accomplished that to the same degree, i don't know.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 22, 2007, 2:09 PM
Post #269 of 354
(13556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
wideguy wrote: Aliens are a great design, no doubt. It's really a shame.
Truly.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 22, 2007, 2:52 PM
Post #270 of 354
(13537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
bspisak wrote: “The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it”
How true, how true. Though I'm not sure I'm interpreting that as you intended it to be
bspisak wrote: Jan 2, 2006 - Orange Alien CCH http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104150 Jan 4, 2006 - CCH response to alleged defect http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104279 Oct 9, 2005 - Possible Problem with new CCH Aliens.... http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1207666 Jan 6, 2006 - REI recall Orange Alien http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104434 Jan 10, 2006 - rei/mgear no longer selling aliens? http://rockclimbing.com/...ewtopic.php?t=104714 These threads are partially related to the improperly drilled axel hole and finally the REI recall. With respect to the axel issue, I had heard about this on this site (or perhaps ST) and had just received an orange alien for Xmas and lo’ and behold it was one that was incorrectly drilled. It went back to REI along with a letter to the store manager on all the related info. This is certainly poor Quality Control, but people also fault CCH for not responding specifically to this issue. Perhaps CCH determined that the affected cams where covered by the general recall (this all happened around the same time.) Perhaps they determined that the only cams affected were sent to REI and REI issued the recall as well. Perhaps they found that only a few of these had actually been sold. Perhaps they did some analysis that showed holding power was not effected, just effective range. I don’t know for sure, but neither does anyone else to the contrary. Yet, that doesn’t stop the arm-chair mechanical engineers from commenting ad-museum about how irresponsible CCH was.
Wow, just wow.
bspisak wrote: Feb 20, 2006 - Another Alien falls apart! Not a dimpled one. http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1316740 This one was clearly a CCH fuckup, but it was not due to a general issue with poor quality control. This guy sends a cam in for some unrelated reason, and gets a new one back. Unfortunately, some stoopid secretary pulls a cam from the production floor; only she grabs it from a work in progress bin and not the finished Q/A checked bin. Yes, that should not happen, but it isn’t a sign of a systemic failure. It’s more a sign of a small company reeling from a recent recall that could cost their customers life or limb.
You cite negligence as if it were justification for the incident? Get a grip man.
Reading your posts made me think of this line from "In Search of Lost Time". You really hammered the relevency of the following quote into my head. Read it closely, or you'll miss the point:
Marcel Proust wrote: the fact that our intellect is not the most subtle, the most powerful, the most appropriate instrument for grasping the truth, is only a reason the more for beginning with the intellect, and not with a subconscious intuition, a ready-made faith in presentiments. It is life that, little by little, case by case, enables us to observe that what is most important to our heart, or to our mind, is learned not by reasoning but by other powers. And then it is the intellect itself which, taking note of their superiority, abdicates its sway to them upon reasoned grounds and consents to become their collaborator and their servant.
Aug 21, 2006 - CCH Cam Failure
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1435781
Aug 30, 2006 - CCH ALIENS -- For Immediate Release
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1440473
In reply to: This unsubstantiated Paradise Forks failure generates all kinds of nasty responses and hate messages about CCH.
Unsubstantiated? CCH released a statement about this cam. You use the context of this statement to reason that all cams from the following incidnet were recalled (which is obviously false), and the pretend it didn't happen here in order to call the incident unsubstantiated. Unbelievable. You have absolutely no Intellectual credibility.
In reply to: In the end, it did turn out to be a recalled cam.
Actually CCH's statement said the following:
CCH wrote: It is however still unknown if this unit was clearly dimpled.
The fact that the company that could be held responsible is making a claim of ambiguity over whether or not the unit was dimpled, say a lot. If nothing else, they're indicating that whether or not the cam was recalled is certainly questionable. In fact, they're entire statement on the issue points to that uncertainty, as they ask that all cams from that period be sent in for testing.
I think you're not quite in-touch with reality here.
In reply to: May 15, 2007 - ALIEN FAILURE, 5/15/07 http://www.rockclimbing.com/...m/gforum.cgi?1596942 This cam was found to be a recall cam. Nevertheless it is still being referred to as yet another incident of a post-recall cam failure. Check your facts people.
Check your facts buddy. This cam had no dimple. Therefore, it was not recalled. CCH's comments on this or that website notwithstanding, they never ever recalled non-dimpled units. I think again, this is a clear indication of you letting your rational mind become a servant of your sentimentality.
In reply to: May 1, 2007 - 2 new Post-recall Alien failures. http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1589517 Not sure which “2 new” failures are being referred to. One is related to this thread, the other? (Both links are to the same thread.) Perhaps it is the 5/15 cam?
5/15 cam would be the third failure
The first would be the Souders Crack cam that this thread refers to.
Purple cam @ Indian Creek would be the second cam. Events surrounding that incident were substantiated by Mal from Trango, who, is arguably the most respected leader in the climbing industry.
----
In reply to: Apr 11, 2007 - Souders Crack (11d) ground fall http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=1575796 Now back to this thread. There are some important unanswered questions here. Where's the cam? CCH has posted on their site asking that the guy send the cam in for analysis. It’s been a month. We keep hearing he’s too busy. What gives?
Actually the metalurgist in question refused to test the cam when pins tried to send it to them. Sounds like they're gearing up for some legal action that could come CCH's way.
In reply to: A wise man changes his mind, a fool never
In the end, I didn't go over all of the stuff you posted, because it really took me very little time to see how incredibly deluded you've let yourself become over all of this. I suppose I lost the respect for you as a reasonable human being. At this point in the CCH debacle, there are two kinds of people: Those in touch with reality, and those who are not. After the first Alien failure, the lines were a little more fuzzy. At this point, it cannot get any more clear.
Do you really think that someone is going to find out that pins was belayed on a static rope, off of a grigri anchored statically to the wall? I think not. Even if such an unbelievable situation happened, the cam lobe would have been messed up. In order for an alien to fail at full strenght, an enormous load would have been placed on those little lobes. Anyone who's ever fallen on an alien can attest to the maliability of their lobes.
The hardest part in responding to your posts has been convincing myslef that you are completely serious. It's almost as hard to accept that as to accept what has happened to my wonderful aliens.
(This post was edited by bobruef on May 22, 2007, 3:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 22, 2007, 3:19 PM
Post #271 of 354
(13507 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
cracklover wrote: medicus wrote: I agree with you cracklover. What do you think needs to happen to get something like that started. Another way of stating what I am wanting to know... what qualities of American climbing have hindered an organization like the one you describe from developing? Why isn't there one? What would need to happen for one to develop? I think the American Alpine Club is where we need to look for answers. Maybe this should branch off into a different thread? At any rate, a few potential answers are: a lack of resources at the AAC; a lack of vision in the leadership at the AAC; or that the US climber population is just too splintered and individualistic to get behind any organization. Still, the AMGA and the Access Fund seem to be successful organizations in each of their arenas, showing that it is possible to have a working and powerful climbing organization in the US. Why the AAC has not accomplished that to the same degree, i don't know. GO
I don't know whether the AAC is onward and upward toward a new paradigm in gear testing and accident investigation, but they are changing and growing. A year ago I wouldn't have given them the time of day. My perception was of a group of old guys who climb mountains someplace other than where I climb rocks. Then, this past weekend I joined. Go figure. 
With new climbers' ranches in the works for both the New and the Gunks, I think we'll see a growing AAC presence, at least in the East. I think we can thank Jim Donini for a lot of that. Will that bring more resources? Probably. More gear testing? I'd be interested in seeing it happen. There's an AAC Board meeting in NC this summer and I plan on attending. Perhaps I'll whisper this around a bit. Hmm...
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 22, 2007, 5:01 PM
Post #272 of 354
(13471 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
curt wrote: healyje wrote: psprings wrote: 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? I'd say you're getting a bit irrational at this point - brazing is not the problem - it's the lack of an effective quality process that is the problem. Ditto for swaged and sewn gear - all such gear needs to be produced within the context of a formal quality process and protocol which will catch bad gear and manufacturing problems. Excellent point. If a bad job of brazing was indeed responsible for the failure of this particular cam, the poorly executed braze is merely a symptom of a much larger underlying problem at CCH. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with employing a braze to join the cable of a CCH cam to its head. As others have pointed out, when properly done, this brazed joint should be stronger than the cable itself. The real problem (that we should all be focusing on, in my opinion) is CCH not having nearly enough control over their own manufacturing processes. Curt
True, true. I know it's irrational... but in part, it's due to the fact that it DOES seem like lots of these failures have all had to do with the brazing, whether that be because the cable wasn't held all of the way inserted or whatever. Metolius' brazing job doesn't insert a cable into anything, therefore it can be VISUALLY inspected AFTER the brazing, something that CCHs design doesn't allow.
I'm not questioning Metolius: I'm a Believer in their QC and I have whipped on their new ul cams (a greenie in a horizontal... held great even on the third fall. Finally made it the 4th time; after my partner had fallen on it 2x also :D).
I just thought it was worth pointing out. I'd like to learn more about the brazing process and why it seems like CCH has a problem with always getting it right. I think it's due to being able to inspect whether the cable is fully inserted after brazing the cable, a problem that metolius doesn't have to worry about due to design differences.
Yes, it is a QC issue with CCH; Yes I'm a believer in metolius (got to support the PNW since I grew up there, after all :D)... they're stuff is bomber IMHO.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 22, 2007, 5:10 PM
Post #273 of 354
(13462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Cracklover, you are probably right about it needing to be split off.
I just think it would be nice to have an organization like this. I don't see what is holding it back from forming, or what holds the AAC back from taking some of these initiatives. I think that if the leadership that it might be lacking or whatever were there... it would be possible to get this or another organization to step up and take care of some of these issues.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 22, 2007, 6:03 PM
Post #274 of 354
(13427 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Yeah, I heard that Donini might be a force for growth and change there.
Only I heard that the direction where they're planning on growing is toward guide certification. Is stepping on the toes of the AMGA really the best use of their new clout, when there's a wide open ocean of work that no-one else is doing, that desperately needs to be done?
J_ung, yeah, it'd be great if you could make an argument for safety-testing, accident analysis, anchor-system testing, etc being a better use of their resources.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 22, 2007, 10:09 PM
Post #275 of 354
(13363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
Although I got riled up when posting late last night, I was never trying to defend CCH, just get to the bottom of what is real and what is hearsay. By looking at it from CCH’s perspective, I was simply playing devil’s advocate in order to offset some of the mud slinging – which there was certainly plenty of – a lot of it based emotional not logical arguments.
However, I did miss the fact that the cam Fish tested was clearly not dimpled. Dimpled cams are clearly the subject of the recall, not any cam in the date range. Sorry I missed that and apologies to you bobreuf. This is clearly THE smoking gun.
With respect to the orange Paradise Forks failure, since CCH never received the cam for inspection, saying it wasn’t clear if the cam was dimpled is simply the truth. So, no fault for that particular statement. However, by saying in the forum that all cams should be tested dimpled or not, yet not updating the official recall notice on their website, that is certainly fucked up.
So, my list now agrees with yours:
1) The purple cam at Indian Creek. This is the cam that was pulled off the floor unfinished by the secretary as a replacement and failed at the cable loop because the swage wasn’t pressed. CCH at fault? Certainly. Sign of a systemic quality problem? Yes, probably, but indirectly. It certainly indicates CCH has a lack of internal processes to prevent such things from happening. That may also indicate a lack of robust Q/A processes. Point taken.
2) The Fish cam. This one seems to be the clear smoking gun. No dimple, fails at 900lbs. Not good. Add to this that they never updated the recall to include non-dimpled cams, and we clearly have irresponsible behavior.
3) The Soulder’s Creek cam. Remains to be seen, but certainly plausible and in light of the other incidents a reason for concern.
Everything else seems to be light on actual facts and/or is unsubstantiated. Do the mass of these posting taken together implicate CCH has a problem? Not by themselves. However, given the non-dimpled failures and the failure to update the recall to include these, I see why everyone is hostile.
“The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none.”
“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
