|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 25, 2007, 2:04 PM
Post #326 of 354
(11785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
Great post bill, thanks for putting in the time/effort.
billcoe_ wrote: TWO FU*KEN MORE FAILURES AND ONE POOR BASTARD NEARLY DIED.
One correction. There was the Cam at the Soulder's crack, the more recent purple alien at the creek (maldaly posted about it... not dimpled I believe, some euro dude). There was also the one Russ Walling tested. Then there was the nondimpled unswaged cam you posted about That's at least four. Five if you count the Paridise forks cam which CCH admits may or may not have been clearly dimpled. And if that's there position on that cam, that's saying something. If there was even a halfway clear dimple, you know they'd be saying it was dimpled.
Here's the list I have from another thread (which is likely incomplete still). Thanks again for your posts on the subject.
In another thread, I compiled a list of Alien failures documented here and on supertopo (from a quick search and memory). I'm reposting it here for those who've not been following the whole messy saga from the begining. For those of you counting, that brings the number of documented failures/faulty cams to 9 (by my count... please someone correct me if my info is wrong or incomplete). I don't want to be alarmist, but I believe this is important information for those who are not aware of the previous failures/production mistakes.
The list:
Again, If the threads I linked here aren't the best sources, or my descriptions are innacurate, somebody please post up a correction.
Resivoir Wall non-dimpled post recall Purple Alien Failure
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=1593796;#1593796
5/15/7 Non-dimpled Blue Alien fails at 900lbs when tested by Russ Walling http://www.rockclimbing.com/...2;page=unread#unread
Souders Crack 11d groundfall (broken cable, non dimpled, post recall)http://www.rockclimbing.com/...=groundfall;#1585733
Faulty Swage (post recall)
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...n%20failure;#1316820
Dimpled Orange Alien Braze Failure at Indian Creek (the cam that started the recall)
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...n%20failure;#1277756
Gray Alien braze failure (2005, pre-recall)
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
Non dimpled Paradise Forks Orange Alien bodyweight braze failure (post-recall)
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
Misdrilled Axle Holes (rei recall thread)
http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
Tradrenn's oddly sized alien (deleted post)tradrenn wrote: Just the other day I was inspecting my gear ( OK I was bored and had nothing better to do with my time ) and after looking at my Aliens I have discover a little problem with my Yellow ones ( I have to of them ) The problem is that one Yellow Alien has a proper range of Yellow Alien, like it should. Second Yellow Alien has a range of Grey Alien. Difference between Yellow and Grey size range is not that much so it is just a minor inconvenience ( got to get some grey electrical tape ) Here are some picks for you people. The height of good lobe on yellow alien ( 0.508" ) The length of good lobe on yellow alien ( 0.709" ) The height of lobe on grey alien ( 0.553" ) The length of lobe on grey alien ( 0.774" ) The height of lobe on "bad" yellow alien ( 0.553 ) The length of lobe on "bad yellow alien ( 0.773" ) Range of yellow alien ( 0.698" ) (notice the yellow sling ) Range of grey alien ( 0.760" ) (notice the grey sling ) Range of "bad" yellow alien ( 0.761" ) (notice the yellow sling ) So, here is a little heads up for some of you that are getting into Aliens or buying more Aliens.
(This post was edited by bobruef on May 25, 2007, 2:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 25, 2007, 7:13 PM
Post #327 of 354
(11683 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
medicus wrote: 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.
Welcome.
Ya, I find it disturbing that lots of new people are coming in without adaquate training on even basic skills, and do not get a heads up about this. This is a deadly game we play if played incorrectly and an amazingly rewarding, fun and mostly safe one if played correctly.
I keep seeing post after post about some total dumbass Noob simply dropping another climber on belay.
It is an easy skill to learn and practice, but somehow that is not communicated well when they are taught.
There is nothing I can do about that by speaking up as many of those idiots taking someone from work out and spending 2 min showing them how to belay and then launching up a Toprope don't read these forums.
_(*end rant*:-)
______________________________________________
BTW, a small 4 cam unit with narrow width near identical to Aliens - maybe with a few improvements - is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
_____________________________________________
Bob -thanks for the list and the reminder.
Theres a lot on the table there.....whew. Like to see CCH put it together, but ya got to wonder if they just down have it in em to do it.
And by the way, fella named Roland Paulik brazes ever RP micronut made with a single cable. I have NEVER and I mean NEVER, heard of a braze failure. People take huge f*en screamers on them, and the cables on the small ones are tiny. You can snap a cable, people do, but a cable has NEVER just pulled out like is happening here.
Why is that, RP'S have been around longer than Aliens and worldwide they may have many more out in the field being used. They're on damn near every Oz climbers rack for instance, and aliens are rare there.
How do you explain that Brian?
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 25, 2007, 7:49 PM
Post #328 of 354
(11653 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Let's get off of ripping Brian or anyone else limb from limb, and look at the issue instead of the people that are commenting. I think some of Brian's comments have been helpful. How much should a company be expected to communicate if they haven't had the Alien to inspect? And if I were Pinsandbones and was looking at a lawsuit, you can bet that I wouldn't send my alien in to CCH, so what does CCH really have to comment on at this point?
But getting off of comments on people and focusing on the issue at hand...
1. Either it's a brazing failure and the braze job was bad, OR
2. The cable not being inserted into the cable receiver made the connection bad because the brazing didn't cover enough surface area inside the receiver.
I tend to agree with Bill. The brazing was not thorough, or it wasn't done properly, or both. Brazing has been around for a while, including CCHs brazing.
That the cable wasn't inserted fully is uncontested [I think]. But should that matter unless the brazing is going all of the way into the cable receiver? How far is that brazing supposed to extend into the cable receiver?
Look, if in that picture that is a normal amount of brazing that is used to connect the cable to the receiver, then the brazing had to have done incorrectly and the bond had to have been weak, regardless of how much cable was inserted into the receiver. In that case poor QC and brazing processes lead to inconsistent brazing at CCH, which is very scary if they can't get their brazing process right consistently. Or, if the brazing was supposed to go further into the cable receiver, then they still don't have their formula down for correct specifications for brazing. Either way it's lose-lose for CCH IMHO.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 25, 2007, 8:02 PM
Post #329 of 354
(11637 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
psprings wrote: Let's get off of ripping Brian or anyone else limb from limb, and look at the issue instead of the people that are commenting. I think some of Brian's comments have been helpful. How much should a company be expected to communicate if they haven't had the Alien to inspect? And if I were Pinsandbones and was looking at a lawsuit, you can bet that I wouldn't send my alien in to CCH, so what does CCH really have to comment on at this point? But getting off of comments on people and focusing on the issue at hand... 1. Either it's a brazing failure and the braze job was bad, OR 2. The cable not being inserted into the cable receiver made the connection bad because the brazing didn't cover enough surface area inside the receiver. I tend to agree with Bill. The brazing was not thorough, or it wasn't done properly, or both. Brazing has been around for a while, including CCHs brazing. That the cable wasn't inserted fully is uncontested [I think]. But should that matter unless the brazing is going all of the way into the cable receiver? How far is that brazing supposed to extend into the cable receiver? Look, if in that picture that is a normal amount of brazing that is used to connect the cable to the receiver, then the brazing had to have done incorrectly and the bond had to have been weak, regardless of how much cable was inserted into the receiver. In that case poor QC and brazing processes lead to inconsistent brazing at CCH, which is very scary if they can't get their brazing process right consistently. Or, if the brazing was supposed to go further into the cable receiver, then they still don't have their formula down for correct specifications for brazing. Either way it's lose-lose for CCH IMHO. Any thoughts?
My hope is that CCH can figure this out and move forward with near flawless production.......but I personally think that given what preceeded these recent failures,...well frankly they should be there now or able to at least have some sort of system in place to quickly determine why recent ones these happened.
I think that is part of the sadness and confusion many of these folks on this thread are feeling Brian, I don't think anyone is meaning to just take it out on you. The thread started with a very very serious injury that we wouldn't wish on any of our enemies before it got to this point.
You sound like a very productive and intellegent dude. Perhaps you can communicate some of these issues and concerns to CCH and report back to us what concrete steps they are doing or why they cannot proceed in determineing the cause of these recent failures and we can supply some additional info they might need etc etc?
Take care, and seriously, thanks for caring.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 25, 2007, 8:36 PM
Post #330 of 354
(11618 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Bill,
Hey, really well put.
I don't think this thread started to bash CCH; and I think you're right that a lot of fear and confusion, and I would add lack of information have lead to the personal attacks. I think people are taking the frustration of what's going on out on people that are on one side or the other.
The fact is, we won't get any info back from CCH because they don't have the cam and they can't analyze the braze. It won't happen, and it's unfair for us to expect them to give us information that they don't have because they don't have the evidence, a lawyer probably does. I think we will see some of this information later, but for now it's a moot point. The only one that can do anything to find this out is whoever has the cam, as I'm sure is being done. All we have to make a judgement on is pictures, which are plenty enough for me: you can see the failure.
Getting the info to find out how it happened and where the process went wrong is a whole nother ballgame: and that's what everyone wants to know... how? What would be helpful is if someone knew CCHs process for brazing: specificed times, etc, where the brazing could have gone wrong. That would help us throw some things around a little more intelligently.
Other than that, like Bill said, it would be awesome if someone who has a head on their shoulders, like you, Brian, could relate some of this. I've only ever owned one alien, so I'd say I'm not the best liason to find out answers to how procedures are done, or where things could go wrong. Honestly, I'm not sure they'd tell you... how many companies are willing to publicly display their fabrication process? We're lucky we have what they've posted... I haven't seen any testers on metolius' or bd's site. But then again I haven't needed too.
Anyway, I'll keep climbing on my TCUs and call it good. I think this thread is out of information to keep going... maybe when some stats come back. Till then I'll be staying off of aliens.
Peace,
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
foeslts16
May 25, 2007, 9:15 PM
Post #331 of 354
(11591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2002
Posts: 210
|
I have a question, it seems like quite a few of you guys either know or have had conversations with the folks at CCH - right? Have any of you guys asked Dave @CCH (i think that's his name) to start a dialogue here at rc.com about what is happening.
I would think that any company would want to address a forum like rc.com with so many potential/current customers.
Could an admin here contact them as a representative of rc.com, and ensure that any dialogue would be moderated and not just a flamefest?
Any takers - j_ung, jt512, healyje, tim, reno, curt, wideguy, jakedatc.
I know the time for CCH to post up and give info is long overdue, but it would be nice to get some info straight from the source.
just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 25, 2007, 9:21 PM
Post #332 of 354
(11580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Hmm, good idea, but from what has been written it sounds like Healyje has tried that before. But it would be nice to have someone try or at least get a statement from CCH issued about it, even if they just put it up on their website, and even if it just says "we have nothing to analyze though a failure has been reported".
Have a great Memorial Day weekend guys! I'm bailing on the climbing scene this weekend... canyoneering in Zion instead! Woot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 25, 2007, 9:37 PM
Post #334 of 354
(11560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Here is the situation foeslts. I'm not 100% sure, but I have this distinct gut feeling that lawyers on CCH's side has advised them not to put anything in print source. I had an e-mail correspondence with them, and they would always call me back after I e-mailed them... but they would only e-mail me things like "sorry we cannot e-mail you back, we will be calling in a few minutes". I don't know for a fact, but I really think getting CCH to publish anything online that a lawyer has not fully gone through will be impossible. From my gut feeling, I would guess that CCH will give no public word unless it is an official announcement that a lawyer has said is okay for them to put on their website... they probably will not correspond here ever again... and the reason being lawyers telling them no.
I don't know that for a fact, but that is the distinct feeling I get when communicating with CCH.
Edited to clarify
(This post was edited by medicus on May 25, 2007, 9:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
May 25, 2007, 11:24 PM
Post #335 of 354
(11520 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
Dave has an account here (cchaliens, but gave up reading or posting. I asked him to post on the phone when I talked to him (he called after I submitted some questions/complaints via e-mail) but he said he doesn't want to bother with it any more.
Also, I noticed pinsandbones (who fell) has been logging in (2 days ago most recently) but hasn't responded on what is going in on with having the cam analyzed...
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 25, 2007, 11:32 PM
Post #336 of 354
(11515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
i have a feeling (no real evidence) that Pins is suing their ass and won't be saying much of anything until that gets sorted out..
Anyone else feel these failures correspond a bit to them shipping out to the big box places (rei, ems etc) maybe they rush things too much when they have too many orders to fill at once.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 26, 2007, 12:00 AM
Post #337 of 354
(11496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
medicus wrote: Here is the situation foeslts. I'm not 100% sure, but I have this distinct gut feeling that lawyers on CCH's side has advised them not to put anything in print source.
Hmmmm, likewise: but I have the distinct feeling that CCH has not even been able to spell "Lawyer" in the past, but that pinandbones is about to introduce the concept to them.
I suspect that during the discovery process, this thread will be utilized as well. ...which makes me....well, it just makes me...
walk off....
want to go climbing.
Peter, can you be of any help to CCH in the situation? Healyje tried earlier, and I can personally attest to the fact that he's damn sharp, smart dude and more than capable ....but.....
yet
here
we remain.......
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 26, 2007, 12:12 AM
Post #338 of 354
(11492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
I am saddened to say that as much as people all say we hate lawyers and outragerous lawsuits: which only serve to ultimately stifle out creativity and freedoms, this looks like it is about to be a solid reminder that our system sometimes works and helps....
sadly..
yet not sad.....
shit.
It's the reason we cannot get HB products anymore. Some dumb MF tried an Aussie rappel with a figure 8. The carabiner broke. Like it had for others. The survivors sued, as was discussed on RC.Com by some of those involved.
No more HB products and those fine offset nuts, Hugh Banner settled and then tossed in the towel. CCH has signifigantly more cupability here than HB did.
Shit.
GodDamn it all.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 26, 2007, 12:59 AM
Post #339 of 354
(11474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Folks, once again - it is way past that time. There is zero reason to go around that loop with CCH yet again - no better result will be gained this time. Pull testing and testing machines don't mean anything unless each and every single cam actually get tested and goes through testing as part of a formal protocol. Cams have clearly been shipped post recall that did not get tested regardless of any and all talk about testing and 'tensile' stamping. 9, 99, 999 or 9999 cams testing good is irrelevant if 1 bad cam escapes the protocol to be shipped.
Again, no company in this business should get two chances to fix the same problem - not one of us can afford to have such a company in business. Any and all efforts to talk to CCH and to help them fix their process at this point would amount to doing exactly what we all did before, for exactly the same reason. By way of analogy, I don't mind putting a friend through rehab a couple of times back-to-back (and have), but I don't put myself in situations where my life is in that person's hands regardless of how much I care for them. Get a clue folks...
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 26, 2007, 1:48 AM
Post #340 of 354
(11457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
I think you are right billcoe. I thought this as soon as we couldn't figure out why pinsandbones hadn't sent in the cam. The thing is... I know how the community feels about lawyers... and I know that I pretty much feel the same about lawyers... but... I can't blame lawyers being pulled into this situation. The first time, I can see people being upset about lawyers being called into for a manufacturing deal... and I don't think they really were were they? Well, CCH was given the chance to fix the situation... probably to the extent that pinsandbones felt safe on the cams because of all the recent issues how could any cam CCH put out not be tested? Well, it appears that this one wasn't... and this one is obviously a post recall alien. Regardless of if it were tensile tested or not, CCH says they tensile test ALL cams coming out of their factory now. It would appear that tensile testing would have shown that this cam would have not passed... and for that, I think CCH is in a huge liability legally. Yes, maybe pinsandbones should have bounce tested his gear or verified the integrity of the cam... but when it came "tensile tested" and due to the screw up CCH had previously, I can't really shun pinsandbones for not testing it. I know it has been discussed before, but who (prior to the CCH ordeal) tested every single piece of gear prior to use? I guess what I am saying, is IF lawyers are being pulled into this matter, I can't fault pinsandbones at all for getting lawyers involved. In fact... assuming that there were no obscure bizarre forces that actually acted on this came that would be in excess of the rated force (it appears obviously to not be even near the necessary force)... I have a strong feeling that CCH should no longer be in operation. The QC just isn't there.
So yes, getting lawyers involved can suck a lot... but it honestly seems like CCH has screwed up too many times for lawyers to not be involved.
Flame away if you will, but at this point... I just don't see how CCH should be in business anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 26, 2007, 3:57 AM
Post #341 of 354
(11434 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
healyje wrote: Folks, once again - it is way past that time.
Yeah, you are soooo right. I re-read the posts. This was a post recall unit which had a mfg date stamp of 03/07. The part was stamped "tensile tested".
Nothing to say except drone on about CCH's inadaquacies.
I'm done.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 28, 2007, 5:21 AM
Post #342 of 354
(11352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
tradrenn wrote: 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
...and admittedly, i do not recall if the smaller sizes are the same as the larger ones in regards to the method of stem attachment, so i'll have to look for myself as well. I guess it's been a long time since I've had enough doubt in the integrity of my Camalots to require more than a cursory inspection.
|
|
|
|
|
soillclimber
May 28, 2007, 4:55 PM
Post #343 of 354
(11291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 31
|
Hey all, I have been out of town on business and pulling my longest continuous driving adventure ever (32 hours straight, no drugs (that is always the next question)), so I have not read all of the two new pages of posts. I just wanted to let you all know that Pins sent in the cam in question for testing about a two weeks ago, and is waiting for the results. Maybe a week and a half ago, but whatever. It is there and I will post the results when I get them. Have a great one, I'm going fishing in my new SOT kayak. No, it wasn't made by CCH, so it should float.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 25, 2007, 5:55 AM
Post #344 of 354
(10856 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
soillclimber wrote: Hey all, I have been out of town on business and pulling my longest continuous driving adventure ever (32 hours straight, no drugs (that is always the next question)), so I have not read all of the two new pages of posts. I just wanted to let you all know that Pins sent in the cam in question for testing about a two weeks ago, and is waiting for the results. Maybe a week and a half ago, but whatever. It is there and I will post the results when I get them. Have a great one, I'm going fishing in my new SOT kayak. No, it wasn't made by CCH, so it should float.
Any update yet Soillclimber?
|
|
|
|
|
thenutz
Aug 17, 2007, 5:40 AM
Post #346 of 354
(10403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2007
Posts: 12
|
My best regards to the climber that decked on souders crack , i have knowledge of this climb seen it but never climbed its very nice route to climb ive been told. As for the gear failure ive have seen all the pictures in this thread from all the failures across the U.S, and as for yours in paticular viewing your pictures and seeing the type of engineering that went into this piece being made. My opinion and i state this clearly its my opinion that the cable is clearly brazed into the cable socket, but not swagged and when i say swagged the socket is not compressed down onto the cable only silver soldered to say in the socket if you where to look at any old flexible friend you will see what im talking about all of Wc friend flexibles that is are swagged as in most nuts cables with the exception of your very micro nuts that are brazed or silver soldered to say now take the ratings on these pieces of gear and you see that the good old swagged cables have a lot higher rating because of the process of swagging gives much better strength in connecting two pieces of metal together, and you look at the ratings on the small brazed nuts much lower the rating reflects to its use aid as i feel a alien should be used as well this is just my opinon. So as for my sense on the subject the product that failed most likely would not fail if being used for aid and should not be used for free climbing where a leader fall could and as we have seen here potentially cause the product to fail. Also as for CCH im not backing them or there product i own none of these aliens but from a engineering point of view i feel the process and the way the cam cable is connected is very very wrong it should be swagged and not brazed that is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 17, 2007, 5:51 AM
Post #347 of 354
(10394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
thenutz wrote: My best regards to the climber that decked on souders crack , i have knowledge of this climb seen it but never climbed its very nice route to climb ive been told. As for the gear failure ive have seen all the pictures in this thread from all the failures across the U.S, and as for yours in paticular viewing your pictures and seeing the type of engineering that went into this piece being made. My opinion and i state this clearly its my opinion that the cable is clearly brazed into the cable socket, but not swagged and when i say swagged the socket is not compressed down onto the cable only silver soldered to say in the socket if you where to look at any old flexible friend you will see what im talking about all of Wc friend flexibles that is are swagged as in most nuts cables with the exception of your very micro nuts that are brazed or silver soldered to say now take the ratings on these pieces of gear and you see that the good old swagged cables have a lot higher rating because of the process of swagging gives much better strength in connecting two pieces of metal together, and you look at the ratings on the small brazed nuts much lower the rating reflects to its use aid as i feel a alien should be used as well this is just my opinon. So as for my sense on the subject the product that failed most likely would not fail if being used for aid and should not be used for free climbing where a leader fall could and as we have seen here potentially cause the product to fail. Also as for CCH im not backing them or there product i own none of these aliens but from a engineering point of view i feel the process and the way the cam cable is connected is very very wrong it should be swagged and not brazed that is my opinion.
They don't charge extra for using periods dudes. Toss a few in here and there OK?
Since Metiolius introduced their better Alien style cams last week at the show, no one will ever have to suffer buying a CCH Alien again.
AT least once Metolius starts making them.
|
|
|
|
|
thenutz
Aug 17, 2007, 7:18 AM
Post #348 of 354
(10367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2007
Posts: 12
|
Sorry, billcoe
I just used your post to reply to the issue. I agree with what everyone has said on the issue. I was just referring to the engineering behind the way the product was made. I feel it the cam cable would not have failed if it had been swagged instead of brazed in the cable socket. Also if the product was used correctly i have been away from climbing for some years and when i was climbing at that time aliens was strickly a aid cam. Just wanted to give my two cents on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 17, 2007, 2:28 PM
Post #349 of 354
(10292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Aliens that have been built correctly hold up just fine being brazed. They are rated to take free climbing falls when built correctly.
The cam was being used correctly, just not built and tested correctly by CCH.
and yay for metolius
|
|
|
|
|
Nnorthwall
Feb 18, 2008, 7:25 PM
Post #350 of 354
(9233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2007
Posts: 11
|
Climber,
Hope you understand Silver Soldering process on
the 7 X19(133 pcs fine wire) stemcable of Aliens. Silver Solder melting at 1250 degree F and the over heat burn the fine wire.Heat control is real trouble on manual silver soldering process. It can be computerize but very expensive for the product.
Over heat will burn the fine wire(133 pcs fine wire -
.009 inch diameter) that is why tensil strength shows every where (900 lbs, 1100 lbs,1200 lbs and 2600lbs). Cam strength depend on the soldering heat and soldering time.
Wild country and Metolius using 7 X 7(49 pcs heavy wire) stemcable. It is heavy, stiff wire and safe to silver soldering on the stemcable.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
