|
medicus
May 24, 2007, 8:17 PM
Post #302 of 354
(11230 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
well... I just misinterpreted it then. I was wondering why there seemed to be no decent format with the way they were reporting the results. It makes a lot more sense this way. I guess I was trying to make sense of what they said instead of what they meant.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 24, 2007, 8:25 PM
Post #303 of 354
(11221 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
By the way, they claim to be tensile testing all their cams. If they're truly testing the assembled cams to 1700 lbs, it's hard to understand how they're not arriving in shops with that pattern on the lobes where they dug in to the testing rig. This makes me think perhaps they're only testing the cables before assembly, as Jake suggested earlier?
For example, if you look again at the cam on the right, that overcammed at 1838 lbs (a respectable number for a blue Alien) you'll note the very strong indentations on the lobes from the testing rig. If they're truly testing each cam to 1700 lbs, this is only 138 lbs less than that blue Alien got. The lobes should be almost equally patterned! Yet all the Aliens I've seen in stores have their lobes looking completely pristine. I doubt they re-finish the lobes after testing them - that'd take way too much work.
Thoughts?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 24, 2007, 8:33 PM
Post #304 of 354
(11212 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
When I talked to dave, he said they had some way of pull testing the cams without using the lobes. The pull test was supposed to test the cable and the brazing. I'm not sure exactly how it was rigged up... if you call, he'll explain it to you, but from what I can remember something gripped the piece in a way that didn't use the cam lobes at all.
|
|
|
|
|
spideyman
May 24, 2007, 9:03 PM
Post #305 of 354
(11177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 32
|
Cracklover, where are you getting your interpretation of overcammed from? When my friend fell on an alien and it pulled the cams completely inverted; meaning that they were all pointing straight up in the air. Thats what I mean when I say inverted and unbrella'd. I've never heard overcammed used in the manner in which you speak...Generally when someone says overcammed they mean pulling the trigger past 50%....
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 24, 2007, 9:33 PM
Post #307 of 354
(11150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
cracklover wrote: spideyman wrote: Cracklover, where are you getting your interpretation of overcammed from? When my friend fell on an alien and it pulled the cams completely inverted; meaning that they were all pointing straight up in the air. Thats what I mean when I say inverted and unbrella'd. I've never heard overcammed used in the manner in which you speak...Generally when someone says overcammed they mean pulling the trigger past 50%.... Who cares? No-one here is arguing about the general definition of the words overcammed or inverted. The question is - what is meant by the failure mode CCH calls "overcammed". Despite the fact that it doesn't agree with the common meaning of the term, I think I answered the question pretty clearly, based on the photo they posted online. If you disagree with my explanation, please do so based on looking at their website, not based on reiterating the common nomenclature that's irrelevant to the question. GO
Good eye on the photos, cracklover. Yeah, after seeing the testing rig on their website, it seems clear that they're pull testing the head/cable assembly, and not loading the lobes. That doesn't really bother me much.
I called CCH to clear this up. By overcam, they mean the cams umbrella'd. Dave said that with the smaller cams, the failure mode is a combination of the axle bending, and then the cams flipping open.
I still call BS on no cams failing out of all sent in for testing.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 24, 2007, 9:45 PM
Post #309 of 354
(11130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
cracklover wrote: bobruef wrote: Yeah, after seeing the testing rig on their website, it seems clear that they're pull testing the head/cable assembly... Really? Where on their website do you see anything suggesting they're doing pull testing of the cable-head assembly on any cams aside from the few they pull to failure? GO
That's the picture I'm talking about. I think what they do there is braze a head on each end of a cable about twice as long as needed for each cam. Then insert into machine, pull test, cut in half, and assemble both cams. I could be wrong though. I think this was discussed in this or one of the other countless alien threads.
Edited to add: I think if I'm correct, the setup I'm describing is how they test new cams and cams sent in. The cams recently posted on their website got the full meal deal (vice test).
Edited again to add: This is the sentence accompanying the picture: "Since January 2006 every main cable is tensile tested using an Omega electronic strain gauge to measure the load. The .33 through 1" main cables are tested to 1750 lbs and the 1.25 through 2.5 are tested to 2400 lbs. After testing they are stamped on the cable eye to indicate the test was made."
(This post was edited by bobruef on May 24, 2007, 9:53 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 24, 2007, 10:48 PM
Post #310 of 354
(11084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
psprings wrote: 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. Peter
time to tweak the design a bit then... perhaps if CCH were to drill the head completely though, such that the end of the brazed cable were to be visible at the top of the head, ah la Camalots?
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 24, 2007, 10:53 PM
Post #311 of 354
(11077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
stymingersfink wrote: psprings wrote: 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. Peter time to tweak the design a bit then... perhaps if CCH were to drill the head completely though, such that the end of the brazed cable were to be visible at the top of the head, ah la Camalots?
Either that or have a small drilled pilot hole through the cable reciever to make sure it's in all the way before, during, and after the brazing...
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 24, 2007, 11:03 PM
Post #312 of 354
(11067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Is that patented by BD? I actually wondered the other day why CCH didn't already do this. Would it drive up costs all that much? The only reason I could think that might hold them back would be some patent something... or just that they hadn't thought of that. That would clear up a lot of the issues I would think. Failures like the one in this thread probably would be drastically reduced if not eliminated I would guess.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 24, 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #313 of 354
(11053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Not sure on the patent, but CCH may have an issue with being able to do it based on how they connect their stem to the axle... I don't have a side by side comparison of BD and CCH, but I'd guess the whole stem-axle interface is different between the 2... Anybody have Aliens AND BDs that can compare? I don't have either... (U-stem man myself... trigger is so easy to pull when gripped! :D)
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 24, 2007, 11:27 PM
Post #314 of 354
(11048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
bobruef wrote: I think what they do there is braze a head on each end of a cable about twice as long as needed for each cam. Then insert into machine, pull test, cut in half, and assemble both cams.
Yep. In my correspondence with them, Dave said that is how they do it. 1750 lbs for the 5/32 cable (1" and under) and 2400 for the 3/16 cable.
When they get a cam in for testing, they use a fixture under the cable eye (around the cable) and load to 1750 by pulling on the cable loop.
You really have to know the properties of the materials in use to ensure that this kind of testing doesn't cause fatique that could impact the ultimate strenth of the cam. It is possible that testng could cause fatique such that it would fail at a lower load. I'm not saying this is the case here, nor that I know enough to calculate these stresses, but from a materials point of view this is a concern.
From a production standpoint, statistical sampling of pull-to-fail on representative sample sets would provide data to determine if this was occuring and is also a typical production quality control method. I don't know if CCH does this, one would hope they do.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
rhyang
May 24, 2007, 11:51 PM
Post #315 of 354
(11017 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 140
|
I also noticed the following on their instructions page :
In reply to: This product complies with BSI Standards EN 12276. It is designed as a Friction Anchor for climbing and mountaineering purposes, for use in normal climatic conditions and in temperatures not exceeding 50° C (122° F). It is recommended that camming devices should not be used in wet and icy conditions due to the reduction in friction that occurs in such conditions. (etc)
Any idea what this means ?
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 25, 2007, 12:51 AM
Post #316 of 354
(10989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
medicus wrote: Is that patented by BD? I actually wondered the other day why CCH didn't already do this. Would it drive up costs all that much? The only reason I could think that might hold them back would be some patent something... or just that they hadn't thought of that. That would clear up a lot of the issues I would think. Failures like the one in this thread probably would be drastically reduced if not eliminated I would guess.
For the record, the weakest point on the Camalot is the eye the sling is sewn to, a designed weakness which will preclude it from ever really breaking anywhere else when used properly.
Which is to say, if they were to see units field tested to failure breaking anywhere else, I'd be willing to bet the alarm bells would be going off pretty loudly.
edit to add: the above is my understanding of the camalot design, which may or may not be the way it really is. I am not a mechanical engineer, but I play one in the field.
(This post was edited by stymingersfink on May 25, 2007, 12:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
May 25, 2007, 1:30 AM
Post #317 of 354
(10951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
stymingersfink wrote: psprings wrote: 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. Peter time to tweak the design a bit then... perhaps if CCH were to drill the head completely though, such that the end of the brazed cable were to be visible at the top of the head, ah la Camalots?
Can You please take a look at your Camalots again ?
I just had a look at mine and found out that cable doesn't go thru on cams from .3 to 1 and it does on cams #2 and bigger.
I would guess that there is an engineering reason why they ( CCH and BD ) don't do that. Perhaps cam is to small to handle that.
OR
Are you using older version of Camalots ?
I have C4.
Anybody from BD reading this ?
I would like to know.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 25, 2007, 5:05 AM
Post #318 of 354
(10899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Brian: thak you for not starting a flame war. I didn't mean to offend you and I'm glad you didn't take offense.
It could be an outside chance that these 2 recent failed cams were pre-recall and not dimpled? If that is true, then why doesn't CHH announce that if true?
In either case: the rest of us carry a huge burden on the dimpled issue which resulted in a recall (which was forced onto CCH) wherein CHH was shown failed cams, more than one, blew it off, and sat on their ass's until Paul Fish from Mountain Gear couldn't stand the inaction any more and praise the lord took action for us and checked it out because there could have been several lives lost while CHH sat there with their thumbs up ther asses picking their noses and ignoring the thousands of emails and phone calls to them. All the info clearly indicated manufacuring errors, yet they did nothing until it was forced on them.
So theres been lots of work inbetween now and then where CCH has been saying that all Aliens will now be tested before leaving the factory. Yet here are TWO FU*KEN MORE FAILURES AND ONE POOR BASTARD NEARLY DIED.
Could you please take a moment to explain how these 2 cams passed the testing, made it out the door and nearly killed 2 people?
Can you give me an estimate of how many more of these failures we will see and what you expect the probability of a death is? How many people will be dying due to poorly made products by this company? These are clearly manufacturing defects.
Because I can give the probability to you if you were to ask that question about a MANUFACTURING ERROR for a Black Diamond or Metolius or Trango cam. Near Zero. Statistically insignifigant enough to say that. Sure the tiny little 4kn rated cams will fail (still rarely) when someone takes a big free climbing fall, but I'm not talking about user error on using an aid piece for a freeclimbing whipper.
I am specifically addressing CRITICAL ERRORS MADE DURING THE MFG PROCESS. Poor quality parts.
And here are 2 (TWO) new identical failures which followed up a massive attempt by CHH to get their quality up.
Perhaps you can address why this only has been happening to CHH with Alien failures, and give us an idea why they are still occuring and when, if ever, it will stop. My prediction is that they will be sued and put out of business. I hope that happens before a person who is trusting their gear dies.
I have been right there and heard the sound a body makes augering in from 70 feet up as a young man falls and pulls piece after piece. The sound oand yells, the clanging of metal, the finality of a heavy watermelon or sack full of potatoes hitting the earth with a sickenig thud. The aeorta torn from his heart by the violent impact: and I seen and heard the wailing of the loved ones. I have tasted the exhaled breath of a dead man too far gone to bring back via CPR, yet not knowing that and not stopping even as my arms are in agony and cramping while the crying continues behind me.
I have lowered multiple bodies off of a route to waiting litters to be carried off and planted in the dirt via the accompanyment of crying of the loved ones.
I have seen a young ladies head smashed so hard that her head was half way missing. Blood and grey matter littering one of my formerly favorite routes.
These are things I dislike the most about our sport. They do not leave your memory quickly or easily - maybe at all is a better description.
It may be me tomorrow biting the dirt (seriously), but I hope is isn't due to someone elses lazyness and carelessness because thats the only reason I can attribute to these continued failures which occur with CCH cams. I especially hope to not see it happen to a young person, so loved and full of life, and know that it was needless AND caused by unnessary lazyness on the part of some Mfg. That is what I mean. That is what I am look at right here at this instance and thread about Souders crack. What a scary and needless near miss.
I do not mean to sound shrill, emotional and non-intellectual but I guess maybe it comes with my territory and history.
You seemd to start your posting by defending CHH but not really reading the laundry list of complaints against the company. When called on it you did go read that info. So why should I spend all night hunting down, cutting and pasting snippets and stories so that you can sit here, be lazy and make me work. Go search out the info it's all over out there.
I asked the questions above in true seriousness. I would like your opinions. Maybe someday we will tie in togther, I suspect you are a great partner as you sound so level headed. But I would advise you to open your mind a bit to what the mass of people are suggesting and saying about all this.
Truth in advertizing: I had all 18 of mine tested and regularly continue to climb on them. CCH returned them in a timely and professional manner. For that I am grateful to the company. Yet I will buy no more CCH products as I now know for a fact that one of the major Mfgs is working on the design for a better, improved version and this product, which unlike CCH's products, will be reliable as all of this companies other products are now.
thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 25, 2007, 5:20 AM
Post #319 of 354
(10888 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Trophy ++++
well said Bill.. very very well said
Brian. read every word.. twice. please
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 25, 2007, 5:21 AM
Post #320 of 354
(10886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Thanks Jake, I'll start working on the spelling next:-)
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 25, 2007, 5:39 AM
Post #321 of 354
(10884 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
billcoe_ wrote: I hope that happens before a person who is trusting their gear dies. I have been right there and heard the sound a body makes augering in from 70 feet up as a young man falls and pulls piece after piece. The sound oand yells, the clanging of metal, the finality of a heavy watermelon or sack full of potatoes hitting the earth with a sickenig thud. The aeorta torn from his heart by the violent impact: and I seen and heard the wailing of the loved ones. I have tasted the exhaled breath of a dead man too far gone to bring back via CPR, yet not knowing that and not stopping even as my arms are in agony and cramping while the crying continues behind me. I have lowered multiple bodies off of a route to waiting litters to be carried off and planted in the dirt via the accompanyment of crying of the loved ones. I have seen a young ladies head smashed so hard that her head was half way missing. Blood and grey matter littering one of my formerly favorite routes. These are things I dislike the most about our sport. They do not leave your memory quickly or easily - maybe at all is a better description.... ...thoughts?
Man...I was scared of heights before I got into this activity... and I'm still not all that crazy about them... I guess it's more of I feel alive by conquering that fear every time I climb a route or something... I'm not saying this in any mean way whatsoever, but if I had read this prior to becoming addicted to this sport, I might have not ever been able to get as involved as I am now. I guess it's also a nice reminder... I mean, it's obvious all the time that climbing is a high risk activity and everything, but just reading gruesome details from a first hand experience kind of hit home.
If it takes CCH going out of business to make their cams safe (by not being produced anymore) then I'm all for it. It just seems that it would not be that hard for them to make their cams safe... and it's sad to see that they are not able to do so. However, it is more sad to hear that someone needlessly even got injured and nearly died because of the QC issues... like I said, I've known all of this. I read this thread all the time... but what you said billcoe just kind of brought it all home. Thanks for taking time to make that post.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
May 25, 2007, 6:33 AM
Post #322 of 354
(10859 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
billcoe_ wrote: I now know for a fact that one of the major Mfgs is working on the design for a better, improved version and this product
A better design of what product? A four lobed cam with a small head, flexible long stem, and thumb loop that places as well as a FAilien?
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 25, 2007, 6:35 AM
Post #323 of 354
(10856 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
josephgdawson wrote: billcoe_ wrote: I now know for a fact that one of the major Mfgs is working on the design for a better, improved version and this product A better design of what product? A four lobed cam with a small head, flexible long stem, and thumb loop that places as well as a FAilien?
Exactly. What's not to understand?
|
|
|
|
|
paulbehee
May 25, 2007, 7:01 AM
Post #324 of 354
(10848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2006
Posts: 88
|
The thread stops here......AVOID Aliens!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 25, 2007, 1:14 PM
Post #325 of 354
(10817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
bobruef wrote: cracklover wrote: bobruef wrote: Yeah, after seeing the testing rig on their website, it seems clear that they're pull testing the head/cable assembly... Really? Where on their website do you see anything suggesting they're doing pull testing of the cable-head assembly on any cams aside from the few they pull to failure? GO [image]http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/image_cache/testing/testing_2.jpg[/image] That's the picture I'm talking about. I think what they do there is braze a head on each end of a cable about twice as long as needed for each cam. Then insert into machine, pull test, cut in half, and assemble both cams. I could be wrong though. I think this was discussed in this or one of the other countless alien threads. Edited to add: I think if I'm correct, the setup I'm describing is how they test new cams and cams sent in. The cams recently posted on their website got the full meal deal (vice test). Edited again to add: This is the sentence accompanying the picture: "Since January 2006 every main cable is tensile tested using an Omega electronic strain gauge to measure the load. The .33 through 1" main cables are tested to 1750 lbs and the 1.25 through 2.5 are tested to 2400 lbs. After testing they are stamped on the cable eye to indicate the test was made."
Okay. I'm just going to have to take your word for it, as i do not see assembled heads in this picture. All i see is a cable with something gripping the ends. Hard to tell what that something is.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
