|
|
|
|
treenail
Sep 22, 2010, 1:25 PM
Post #76 of 89
(3989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 68
|
This is from Tobe Sherrill, the owner of Sherrill Arborist Supply:
I have something to add here.
In reference to the Kong ring failure involving arborist and competitive climber Jay Butcher, I want to insert details omitted from Kong’s issued notice. Included are details not previously discussed and possibly not known by the general public. I stand behind the following details extracted from witnessed phone calls (several including Kong's US representative from the time) and/or emails received directly from Marco Bonaiti.
In August 2006 a similar incident (one without injury) occurred with a Kong ring sourced from US Rigging that I was assured (by a Kong spokesman) “was alien goods substituted by US Rigging.” The distinctive feature of this otherwise plain looking fat aluminum ring was a “forging ridge” around the outside edge. The broken ring was not elongated (indicating high stress forces not present) and was cleanly severed asymmetrically. US Rigging strongly denied substituting any rings but because of a variety of low cost imports they were marketing I wasn't personally convinced.
Based on Kong’s critical assessment of US Rigging, SherrillTree returned all aluminum rings to USR and began sourcing directly (and strictly) from Kong in Italy. Kong assured going forward that this was the only way to guarantee tested and laser marked Kong goods and I agreed. Problem solved.
Three years later and just weeks before Jay Butcher would saddle up for the Ohio tree climbing competition, we received a call from a climbing instructor teaching forestry students at a popular SC university. He reported that the small ring in his (recently purchased) friction saver had snapped while demonstrating the body thrust technique to a group of students. Thankfully he was not hurt. Upon hearing this news and reviewing photos, I investigated inventory on our shelves and to my horror discovered unmarked rings again with the distinctive forging ridge in unopened cartons mixed among marked Kong rings. Like a hammer to the head it dawned on me that US Rigging was innocent all along. In an initial conversation with Kong’s president Marco Bonaiti about the university incident it was suggested that “SherrillTree surely has many sources for such rings and likely made the mistake in their warehouse.” I could prove we had no such sources and ample documentation to back it up. Had it not been for Kong’s own US representative (Jack Dunn of AirSports) reporting the same blend on his shelves, I dare say there would have ever been a second conversation with the elusive Dr. Bonaiti. In follow up discussions (including written) Marco Bonaiti admitted outsourcing a similar ring for customers selling lady’s handbags, shower curtains and electric wire suspension but that the possibility of them getting mixed in his plant was quite low.
What became immediately important to SherrillTree was getting these rings off the street, and friends out of harms way. For Marco Bonaiti it was debating the odds of Kong culpability based on US law, the high cost of calling merchandise back and the poor decision by Jay Butcher to use this ring in the manner that he did (?). It was a truly disheartening view of the man I thought a responsible steward of safety and the Kong brand.
There’s so much more to say but I'd prefer that Dr. Bonaiti step out from behind his spokesman’s shadow with a shred of proof to his claim that SherrillTree, the company who organized and financed this business-debilitating recall, is in any way responsible for Kong's unacceptable and cancerous hardware incident.
|
|
|
|
|
Perihelion
Sep 22, 2010, 3:35 PM
Post #77 of 89
(3957 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2010
Posts: 51
|
mattm wrote: The failure of the ring was supposed to be on maybe 3 times bodyweight? I'm having a hard time picturing how a SOLID ring can completely blow apart at those loads without something being obviously wrong with it. An open gate carabiner is typically rated greater than 6kN.
Setting aside the issue of who is responsible, it's not difficult to imagine a solid forged ring fracturing. If the base metal is contaminated, forging won't fix it. Contamination can even occur after forging.
An example is hydrogen embrittlement. Certain aluminum alloys, in particular the high strength alloys such as 7075, are susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. 2024 is known to be susceptible to stress corrosion cracking. You usually can't see this with the unaided eye. The older, medium-strength alloys such as 6061 and 6063 tend to be less susceptible to exotic failures.
This is why some components have traceability all the way back to the billet from which they were made. Manufacturers of critical components for aircraft perform independent testing of the raw materials as part of the incoming QC process. Even if you use the finest manufacturing methods, the end result is limited by the raw material.
Again, I'm not taking a side with regard to Kong's culpability; I am only saying that it is plausible for a ring to fracture as described. The phenomenon is in fact well documented.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Sep 22, 2010, 4:43 PM
Post #78 of 89
(3937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
treenail wrote: The distinctive feature of this otherwise plain looking fat aluminum ring was a “forging ridge” around the outside edge. The broken ring was not elongated (indicating high stress forces not present) and was cleanly severed asymmetrically. US Rigging strongly denied substituting any rings but because of a variety of low cost imports they were marketing I wasn't personally convinced. ... Three years later and just weeks before Jay Butcher would saddle up for the Ohio tree climbing competition, we received a call from a climbing instructor teaching forestry students at a popular SC university. He reported that the small ring in his (recently purchased) friction saver had snapped while demonstrating the body thrust technique to a group of students. Thankfully he was not hurt. Upon hearing this news and reviewing photos, I investigated inventory on our shelves and to my horror discovered unmarked rings again with the distinctive forging ridge in unopened cartons mixed among marked Kong rings.
all this tells me is that Sherrill is making and selling PPE without inspecting its own parts to do so. Or its selling the individual parts without even glancing at them.
Again, its terribly unfortunate that someone was injured, and I continue to believe that Kong has got some explaining to do in terms of the product that failed, but guys, seriously. Kong doesnt make a ring suitable for this application- they never have, and you all need to recognize that.
All this quote above proves is that in addition to Kong making a faulty piece of gear, the distributor and customer both dont bother to inspect their gear visually before selling and using said piece of gear, let alone proof test it.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 22, 2010, 6:08 PM
Post #79 of 89
(3907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
treenail wrote: This is from Tobe Sherrill, the owner of Sherrill Arborist Supply: I have something to add here. [snip]
Thanks for speaking up. Based on your information, I will never buy a product from Kong.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
treenail
Sep 22, 2010, 6:09 PM
Post #80 of 89
(3906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 68
|
VTG,
You're sounding like a Kong Apologist :)
Read what Tobe found and discussed with Dr. B:
"In follow up discussions (including written) Marco Bonaiti admitted outsourcing a similar ring for customers selling lady’s handbags, shower curtains and electric wire suspension but that the possibility of them getting mixed in his plant was quite low. "
Unless goods are made under one's own roof and at arm's length there is a supply chain with many links. It seems like somewhere upstream from Sherrill some purse/shower rings got mixed in the supply flow.
Who is responsible for checking upstream? There are all sorts of examples of how our expectations of QC starts and stops with the vendor that we buy from. If you have an issue with your factory warranted car do you give a call to 'Detroit' to get the issue resolved? NOOOOO...you get hold of the dealer...who is then responsible to go upstream. If you buy a candy bar that is bad to you go to Hershey, PA to find out what chocolate when into the pot? Nope...back to the customer service counter at the grocery store. If you trust the grocery store to have proper suppliers then there is no need for you to investigate upstream...until someone dies or gets hurt/sick.
How is this issue of mixed rings any different than bad candy bars? How could 'Detroit' or 'Hershey' get by with pushing the blame back on the grocery store? Sounds like a dance tune to me.
(This post was edited by treenail on Sep 22, 2010, 6:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 22, 2010, 6:18 PM
Post #81 of 89
(3892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
vegastradguy wrote: all this tells me is that Sherrill is making and selling PPE without inspecting its own parts to do so. Or its selling the individual parts without even glancing at them.
What distributor does? Seriously. Name one. REI?
In reply to: Kong doesnt make a ring suitable for this application- they never have, and you all need to recognize that.
That's completely irrelevant. These were rappel rings that failed under similar forces that would be encountered in a climbing application. Thankfully they didn't occur to someone using them as advertised hundreds or thousands of feet off the ground.
In reply to: All this quote above proves is that in addition to Kong making a faulty piece of gear, the distributor and customer both dont bother to inspect their gear visually before selling and using said piece of gear, let alone proof test it.
And now you're blaming the customer, too? What percentage of climbers would be able to detect a faulty rappel ring on visual inspection? To a first approximation, I'd say zero.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Sep 22, 2010, 6:20 PM
Post #82 of 89
(3890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
treenail wrote: VTG, You're sounding like a Kong Apologist :) Read what Tobe found and discussed with Dr. B: "In follow up discussions (including written) Marco Bonaiti admitted outsourcing a similar ring for customers selling lady’s handbags, shower curtains and electric wire suspension but that the possibility of them getting mixed in his plant was quite low. " Unless goods are made under one's own roof and at arm's length there is a supply chain with many links. It seems like somewhere upstream from Sherrill some purse/shower rings got mixed in the supply flow. Who is responsible for checking upstream? There are all sorts of examples of how our expectations of QC starts and stops with the vendor that we buy from. If you have an issue with your factory warranted car do you give a call to 'Detroit' to get the issue resolved? NOOOOO...you get hold of the dealer...who is then responsible to go upstream. If you buy a candy bar that is bad to you go to Hershey, PA to find out what chocolate when into the pot? Nope...back to the customer service counter at the grocery store. If you trust the grocery store to have proper suppliers then there is no need for you to investigate upstream...until someone dies or gets hurt/sick. How is this issue of mixed rings any different than bad candy bars? How could 'Detroit' or 'Hershey' get by with pushing the blame back on the grocery store? Sounds like a dance tune to me.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Sep 22, 2010, 6:25 PM
Post #83 of 89
(3881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
treenail wrote: How is this issue of mixed rings any different than bad candy bars? How could 'Detroit' or 'Hershey' get by with pushing the blame back on the grocery store? Sounds like a dance tune to me.
because you're building PPE yourselves without testing the parts you're using. and you're building that equipment with parts that are not tested nor meant for the use you are using them for.
you are also, apparently, not even looking at them, as evidenced by Sherrill pointing out that there is a distinctive marking on the bad rings.
im not making excuses for Kong- they screwed the pooch to be sure, but you have to recognize that the user carries some responsibility since you are manufacturing equipment for personal safety here- and if sherrill is also manufacturing, they also carry some responsibility if they are using rings that arent rated or meant for the application.
Kong screwed the pooch by making or sourcing in a way that mixed in burly aluminum rings with shitty ones.
Sherrill screwed the pooch by selling a Kong ring that isnt rated at all alongside rated rings that are meant for the application you're using them for.
The user screwed the pooch by not being diligent about what products he was using when making his own PPE.
everybody has a hand in this one- and hopefully you will all learn something other than 'fuck Kong' from it. if not, hey, its your lives on the line, not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Sep 22, 2010, 6:31 PM
Post #84 of 89
(3878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
jt512 wrote: vegastradguy wrote: all this tells me is that Sherrill is making and selling PPE without inspecting its own parts to do so. Or its selling the individual parts without even glancing at them. What distributor does? Seriously. Name one. REI?
REI doesnt manufacture arborist gear using this stuff. Sherrill does.
In reply to: In reply to: Kong doesnt make a ring suitable for this application- they never have, and you all need to recognize that. That's completely irrelevant. These were rappel rings that failed under similar forces that would be encountered in a climbing application. Thankfully they didn't occur to someone using them as advertised hundreds or thousands of feet off the ground.
these were not rappel rings, these were a completely different ring that isnt certified. Kong does make a rap ring, but it isnt certified, either. this doesnt mean Kong's off the hook, as i've said in all my other posts, but the reality is that DMM and other companies make properly CE/EN certified rings for this particular application. Kong doesnt. For what these guys are doing, they should be aware of what they are building their gear with!
edited for clarification.
In reply to: In reply to: All this quote above proves is that in addition to Kong making a faulty piece of gear, the distributor and customer both dont bother to inspect their gear visually before selling and using said piece of gear, let alone proof test it. And now you're blaming the customer, too? What percentage of climbers would be able to detect a faulty rappel ring on visual inspection? To a first approximation, I'd say zero. Jay
given that the ring apparently has a very discernable weld seam around it, i would say its higher than zero considering all other rings of this type dont have it.
(This post was edited by vegastradguy on Sep 22, 2010, 6:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 22, 2010, 6:52 PM
Post #85 of 89
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
vegastradguy wrote: these were not rappel rings, these were a completely different ring that isnt certified.
For what purpose does Kong sell the rings that Sherrill ordered?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
treenail
Sep 22, 2010, 8:14 PM
Post #86 of 89
(3833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 68
|
The rings were sourced...from Kong...to be used in compliance with ANSI Z133 standards. Who supplied them? Kong...
There are lots of pieces of PPE without markings but the supply chain is trusted...until otherwise proven guilty.
The laser marking of rings like this is a new occurrence.
The identifiable 'ring' on the ring is NOT meant as a marking. Its a leftover from manufacturing.
Who do you blame when bad sheetrock is distributed? Lowes? Partly...and they are entitled to blame upstream. Infant formula? Blame the baby that died? Pffft!
Have all of us screwed pooches learned? You bet! A lot of people have learned to NOT trust Kong. A lot more have learned that Sherrill has stood up and tried to correct the wrong. Sherrill will take in for exchange any of the rings...no matter who they were purchased from. Try to return something without a receipt these days, even with it being in salable condition. Would Lowe's take back Home Depot's bad sheetrock if the codes didn't match? NO!
Kong, is at a minimum, highly suspect...but guilty in my book. And, not just from this issue. Their other products haven't stood up to intended use like their competitors. I vote with my pocket book.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Sep 22, 2010, 9:01 PM
Post #87 of 89
(3818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
Those videos were awesome, Nick. Thanks so much for taking the time to do them. I really watched them closely, even when you spliced the rope. I've spliced my fair share of fishing line in my life, and that was actually fun to watch.
I feel as if I understand your systems a lot better than I did before.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Sep 22, 2010, 9:11 PM
Post #88 of 89
(3810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
redlude97 wrote: Maybe I missed it but if 2 rings were used, if only one blew how did it not hold?
watch the second video and you'll see clearly why this is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Sep 22, 2010, 9:12 PM
Post #89 of 89
(3808 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
treenail wrote: Based on Kong’s critical assessment of US Rigging, SherrillTree returned all aluminum rings to USR and began sourcing directly (and strictly) from Kong in Italy. Kong assured going forward that this was the only way to guarantee tested and laser marked Kong goods and I agreed. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
