|
domu888
Aug 3, 2007, 6:25 AM
Post #1 of 59
(8257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2007
Posts: 111
|
Just wondered what the latest info was on Aliens, since most of the posts specifically on the subject are a bit dated. CCH seem to have started doing more quality control according to their website (http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/testing.html) and I wondered what people have to say on the specific subject.
|
|
|
|
|
crackers
Aug 3, 2007, 1:16 PM
Post #2 of 59
(8181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 416
|
My distributor in the UK, http://www.apexdistribution.co.uk says that he sent a bunch of them to the TUV labs and had them pull tested. He told me that they all tested fine, and that CCH has radically changed their QA/QC procedures...
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Aug 3, 2007, 1:37 PM
Post #3 of 59
(8156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Anyone know if CCH is still in business? I hadn't seen an Alien in stock anywhere until I was up in Estes Park over the weekend and saw they had a pretty sizable stash of new ones behind the counter.
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Aug 3, 2007, 4:16 PM
Post #4 of 59
(8089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
you can still find them online. Try
www.tradrack.com
They usually have lots.
hosh.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 3, 2007, 4:58 PM
Post #5 of 59
(8041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
crackers wrote: My distributor in the UK, http://www.apexdistribution.co.uk says that he sent a bunch of them to the TUV labs and had them pull tested. He told me that they all tested fine, and that CCH has radically changed their QA/QC procedures...
Well, at this point we're back to whether pull testing 10, 1000, or 10000 makes any difference at all if the next one is bad and doesn't get pull tested.
At the heart of the matter is consistency and the fact that there have been a number of well-documented post-recall, post-new-QA/QC failures is simply a staggering indictment of CCH's inability to execute any QA/QC protocol faithfully.
At this point I suspect climbers in the EU are woefully unaware of this entire fiasco so while some EU distributor might pull test a few that fact should bring no comfort to anyone. The facts in this matter are unchanged and on a statistical basis alone it's my opinion they should simply retire from making cams.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone still purchasing these cams is either uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 3, 2007, 5:40 PM
Post #6 of 59
(8001 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
healyje wrote: As far as I'm concerned, anyone still purchasing these cams is either uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot.
Hysterical, a little? If you don't trust them, don't buy them. But don't call me and everyone else who swears by Alien cams "uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot". They are, hands down, the best designed cams in the world.
The source of CCH's problems is not their QA/QC process (or in their design). It is the fact that they make their cams by hand, and that they clearly had an incompetent operator at some point. But if they corrected that situation, and then validated their process, then there is no need to pull test any of their products.
I work with medical products that will almost certain kill you if they are not manufactured correctly. Do we do 100% QC? Hell no. We focus on controlling the manufacturing process and especially those critical operations within it. Training, calibration, maintenance, etc. is the way to build quality into one's products, and that is what the CE-mark is all about. CCH is pursuing that CE-mark, and for anyone who is well-informed, that is all they need to know in order to have confidence in their products.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 3, 2007, 6:00 PM
Post #7 of 59
(7977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
shimanilami wrote: healyje wrote: As far as I'm concerned, anyone still purchasing these cams is either uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot. Hysterical, a little? If you don't trust them, don't buy them. But don't call me and everyone else who swears by Alien cams "uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot". They are, hands down, the best designed cams in the world.
No, not a shred of hysteria in what I said above - it is simply the current reality borne of standard manufacturing quality statistics. Not a single word of what I just said commented on the design of Aliens. That they may or may not be the "best designed cams in the world" (and who's hysterical?) is wholly irrelevant - it's manufacture of the design which is the problem.
In reply to: The source of CCH's problems is not their QA/QC process (or in their design). It is the fact that they make their cams by hand, and that they clearly had an incompetent operator at some point. But if they corrected that situation, and then validated their process, then there is no need to pull test any of their products.
You clearly know little about manufacturing, CCH, and not closely followed this whole saga from the beginning - I have and early on also spent no small amount of time and effort attempting to help Dave and CCH get past these problems - all to no avail.
In reply to: I work with medical products that will almost certain kill you if they are not manufactured correctly. Do we do 100% QC? Hell no. We focus on controlling the manufacturing process and especially those critical operations within it. Training, calibration, maintenance, etc. is the way to build quality into one's products, and that is what the CE-mark is all about. CCH is pursuing that CE-mark, and for anyone who is well-informed, that is all they need to know in order to have confidence in their products.
The CE-mark folks have been notified about the deficiencies in Aliens manufacture and QC execution. Again, you have some pretty strange notions of manufacturing and QC from your comments above. I fully stand by my statements above - the design is not in question, their ability to safely manufacture the design is. The statistics of failed cams - both pre and post recall - clearly dictate they should retire from the business as far as I'm concerned.
Also, note I said, "buy" versus "climb on" in my original statement. I have two sets of pre-recall hybrids I tested myself and still occasionally climb on. No one should buy these cams anymore, however, and anyone climbing on any of them - tensile test stamped or not - should personally test them before climbing on them.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Aug 3, 2007, 6:09 PM
Post #8 of 59
(7958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: The source of CCH's problems is not their QA/QC process (or in their design). It is the fact that they make their cams by hand, and that they clearly had an incompetent operator at some point. But if they corrected that situation, and then validated their process, then there is no need to pull test any of their products.
I'm as big a fan of aliens as anyone. No other cam ever made works as well as aliens. However, if you have post recall "tensile tested" cams failing, you have a problem. The recent failures prove that CCH's process has not been "validated".
In my arbitrary opinion, any alien made after '03 is suspect. Which is a complete shame. I have one that I don't climb with, and my girl friend has several. All of my older aliens, a couple over 10 years old, I still fully trust. I'm trying to work out a way to test the suspect ones myself, so that I can be confident in them. I just haven't yet fully figured out something I'm happy with, and I certainly won't trust any testing that CCH does. Again, a complete shame.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 3, 2007, 6:40 PM
Post #9 of 59
(7909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
I suspect that our views are actually more alike than our argument would suggest.
We agree that the problem is not in the design, but in CCH's ability to control their manufacturing process. Where we disagree is our confidence in CCH's ability to do just that.
In my view, these products are really simple, and it shouldn't be difficult to correct whatever deficiencies exist in production. From what I gather, however, you have direct experience with Dave and CCH and still have doubts. (I must admit, I have worked with people who also seem incapable of getting things right no matter how hard we try, and I generally fire those people.)
But this is why the CE-mark is so important. If CCH is able to achieve this 'certification' despite clear evidence that they were out of control in the past, then they are good by me. If they can't ... well, then they deserve to go out of business.
In the meanwhile, I continue to climb on my 2001 Aliens. I've already done enough informal QC (i.e. whippers) to know that they are good.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Aug 3, 2007, 7:22 PM
Post #10 of 59
(7845 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
shimanilami wrote: The source of CCH's problems is not their QA/QC process (or in their design). It is the fact that they make their cams by hand, and that they clearly had an incompetent operator at some point. But if they corrected that situation, and then validated their process, then there is no need to pull test any of their products. I work with medical products that will almost certain kill you if they are not manufactured correctly. Do we do 100% QC? Hell no. We focus on controlling the manufacturing process and especially those critical operations within it. Training, calibration, maintenance, etc. is the way to build quality into one's products, and that is what the CE-mark is all about. CCH is pursuing that CE-mark, and for anyone who is well-informed, that is all they need to know in order to have confidence in their products.
Well, you are obviously not well informed. I work in QC for a company that has CE approval. We test a very significant percentage of our product for each lot produced. When there is a problem with the process (some steps are manually performed) then we catch it. "There is no need to pull test any of their products." Wow are you ignorant to be speaking like an expert on the subject. Any manufacturing process can have something go wrong, be it malfunction or an operator error. Thus QC testing.
|
|
|
|
|
pug
Aug 3, 2007, 7:48 PM
Post #11 of 59
(7805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Posts: 34
|
healyje wrote: At the heart of the matter is consistency and the fact that there have been a number of well-documented post-recall, post-new-QA/QC failures is simply a staggering indictment of CCH's inability to execute any QA/QC protocol faithfully.
Have there actually been "a number of well-documented post-recall...failures?" I saw an rc.com post some time ago claiming that a non-dimpled alien had failed. I looked for that post recently to see if there was ever any follow-up on it, and could not find it. CCH's site seems to claim that the only cams with documented failures are the dimpled cams as originally asserted. I would think that, if there were further confirmed failures, there would have had to be further recalls. Perhaps, that is ignorant, but it seems like to do otherwise would be negligent, on CCH's part.
That said, as an owner of a set of mostly 2004-2005 aliens, I just picked up some C3's. The amount of uncertainty surrounding aliens right now is enough to make me uneasy.
So, if anyone can point to reliable sources documenting these alleged post-recall failures, I would be very interested to see it. I'd like to know if there are facts behind the FUD.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 3, 2007, 7:50 PM
Post #12 of 59
(7795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
bandycoot wrote: Well, you are obviously not well informed. I work in QC for a company that has CE approval. We test a very significant percentage of our product for each lot produced. When there is a problem with the process (some steps are manually performed) then we catch it. "There is no need to pull test any of their products." Wow are you ignorant to be speaking like an expert on the subject. Any manufacturing process can have something go wrong, be it malfunction or an operator error. Thus QC testing.
I didn't say they shouldn't do any QC. I said that if their manufacturing process is validated, then they don't need to do pull tests on their products. And that is an accurate statement.
I am a big proponent of LEAN and Six Sigma practices. No offense to QC, but it is my goal to eliminate the need for having you guys around. (You're overhead, frankly.) And with a manufacturing process as simple as the one at CCH, it shouldn't be too hard to do.
Now, Marketing may want to state, "100% QC inspected", but that is more a matter of perceived value than real value. And if that increases sales, then I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 3, 2007, 9:56 PM
Post #13 of 59
(7750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
BD is 3 sigma and still pull tests batches (at least they describe with biners) every biner to 1/2 rated strength.. and a few per batch to failure.
you are putting a lot of faith on the IF CCH can pull this shit off.. They have not done a very good job lately of inspiring that much confidence. He claimed they had the issue fixed.. then multiple non dimpled cams have had the heads pop off. They haven't put stuff up on their website admitting to many of them.
It still cracks me up that their official Email addy is at AOL haha
i have 2 post recall pre TT that i need to bounce or pull test
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 3, 2007, 10:16 PM
Post #14 of 59
(7731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
jakedatc wrote: BD is 3 sigma and still pull tests batches (at least they describe with biners) every biner to 1/2 rated strength.. and a few per batch to failure.
I'd be willing to bet that they never find faulty 'biners. Pull testing every 'biner is a marketing ploy that works really well ... worth their investment, I'd say.
jakedatc wrote: You are putting a lot of faith on the IF CCH can pull this shit off. They have not done a very good job lately of inspiring that much confidence.
I don't disagree. But as far as I can see, the root cause of each of the failures is a bad braze. Fixing that process (i.e. "pulling this shit off") shouldn't be difficult (as long as their not stoned while they're doing it.) That is the my biggest gripe with CCH. This isn't rocket science. They just need to focus on the issue at hand.
In the meanwhile, they're losing market share, which is sad. CCH could dominate the micro-cam market, but they're just letting it slip away.
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Aug 3, 2007, 10:27 PM
Post #15 of 59
(7719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
tradklime wrote: I'm as big a fan of aliens as anyone. No other cam ever made works as well as aliens. However, if you have post recall "tensile tested" cams failing, you have a problem. The recent failures prove that CCH's process has not been "validated".
I have heard talk of non-dimpled failures. Has there been reports of "tensile tested" cams failing?
I was not aware of any. If so, that would certainly raise the red flag even higher.
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Aug 3, 2007, 10:33 PM
Post #16 of 59
(7709 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
healyje wrote: As far as I'm concerned, anyone still purchasing these cams is either uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot.
Because there might still be some added danger even if buying aliens that are marked "tensile tested"?
I can't image that the risk is any greater than the other risks associated with gear climbing (lead falls, rock falls, mistakes in the belay chain...).
Or is taking any risk in climbing either uninformed, ill-informed, or idiotic?
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Aug 3, 2007, 10:42 PM
Post #17 of 59
(7698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
sspssp wrote: tradklime wrote: I'm as big a fan of aliens as anyone. No other cam ever made works as well as aliens. However, if you have post recall "tensile tested" cams failing, you have a problem. The recent failures prove that CCH's process has not been "validated". I have heard talk of non-dimpled failures. Has there been reports of "tensile tested" cams failing? I was not aware of any. If so, that would certainly raise the red flag even higher.
I second wanting proof of post-recall and TT cams failing, everyone keeps saying its happened, but I havne't "seen" it, read that one thread which was never cleared up to my knowledge, so please someone show me where is the proof that non-recall cams have failed (I'll admit my ignorance here, I don't get on much anymore, too busy with work, school, and climbing)
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Aug 3, 2007, 10:43 PM
Post #18 of 59
(7697 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
sspssp wrote: tradklime wrote: I'm as big a fan of aliens as anyone. No other cam ever made works as well as aliens. However, if you have post recall "tensile tested" cams failing, you have a problem. The recent failures prove that CCH's process has not been "validated". I have heard talk of non-dimpled failures. Has there been reports of "tensile tested" cams failing? I was not aware of any. If so, that would certainly raise the red flag even higher.
Yes. Here's the list I was keeping, but I don't think it's complete:
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 11 (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.
Two Tensile tested Aliens fail 1100 and 1200 lbs (at the braze)
http://www.supertopo.com/...id=379659&tn=220
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.
And in case the above didn't convince you, maybe this will
Well that about sums it up doesn't it? This cam survived a 1750lb pull test, and broke at 1200?... Right.
(This post was edited by bobruef on Aug 3, 2007, 10:53 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 3, 2007, 10:46 PM
Post #19 of 59
(7690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
That i agree with.. it shouldn't be that hard.. but they seem to be stubborn and making it that way.
i like their new Drop tower videos are pretty funny.. who cares if one cable set up doesn't break.. actually show the numbers.. show a consistency of quality.. then maybe people will come back. but "yuk that there's the 3rd drop on that there cable there and it ain't broke yet" such inspiring words from a guy who builds devices that are supposed to keep people safe 
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Aug 3, 2007, 11:56 PM
Post #20 of 59
(7651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
shimanilami wrote: jakedatc wrote: BD is 3 sigma and still pull tests batches (at least they describe with biners) every biner to 1/2 rated strength.. and a few per batch to failure. I'd be willing to bet that they never find faulty 'biners. Pull testing every 'biner is a marketing ploy that works really well ... worth their investment, I'd say.
IF they (BD) were to find dangerously faulty 'biners at the QC point, the assembly line would immediately get shut down (and stay that way), until they got to the root cause of the problem. I would guess that if a biner in destructive testing (QA) failed in a unique manner the same thing would occur.
My statement is based only upon having been somewhat familiar in the past several of the people doing the QA testing, the protocols in place within the organization, and how seriously KP takes his job and your climbing.
That said, the only somewhat-serious failure I've seen in their manufacture protocols of 'biners was an incident in which one side of the hinge rivit was not properly finished, such that the hinge pin could work its way free and cause the gate to disassemble itself (no reports of such happening in the field, IIRC).
In the case just mentioned above, biner shipment was shut down, while EVERY biner in the warehouse was visually inspected to ensure every biner which could be caught before sale, was. I'm talking on the order of 40,000+ biners in the warehouse, IIRC.
Also, notices were made to the retailers who had purchased biners from the date ranges which were in question, asking them to inspect their stock. People on the assembly line were re-trained and protocols were adjusted to ensure such a thing could be prevented in the future. There was also a voluntary recall notice issued through the CPSC. (Metolius had a similar incident a couple years ago too. They probably responded in a similar manner, but IDK. I would expect them to, however, because I perceive that they take their business seriously.)
In other words, some companies take their reputation for safety seriously. Others don't. BD+Metolius would be good examples of the former, CCH might be a prime example of the latter.
When you've got to twist the arms of a company producing potentially faulty product to get them to act in a responsible manner, that's not a good indicator for the long term viability of the company in question... Especially when the company manufactures trinkets which are designed to protect your life.
That said...
CCH has gotten exactly what they've asked for IMO. The links posted above are simply validation of not only my opinion, but sadly enough, many climbers opinions from around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 4, 2007, 12:08 AM
Post #21 of 59
(7639 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
It seems we all basically agree that the design of CCH Aliens is sound. I am wondering how people feel about the following possibilities:
If CCH farmed out production to an outside party - BD or Metolius, for example - would this eliminate your quality concerns? Would you buy "made by BD/Metolius" Aliens?
If there was a third party who could perform QC (e.g. pull testing), would you take advantage of this service, even if it cost you a few bucks? And would you then buy Aliens again?
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 4, 2007, 12:18 AM
Post #22 of 59
(7628 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
They don't need to be associated with Alien.. BD made C3's, WC has Zero's metolius seems to have made something new that we might know about next week from the OR show. If they are reasonably priced then CCH is doomed. people are just waiting for alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Aug 4, 2007, 12:37 AM
Post #23 of 59
(7615 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
jakedatc wrote: If they are reasonably priced then CCH is doomed. people are just waiting for alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Aug 4, 2007, 1:30 AM
Post #24 of 59
(7591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
shimanilami wrote: If there was a third party who could perform QC (e.g. pull testing), would you take advantage of this service, even if it cost you a few bucks? And would you then buy Aliens again?
No!!!
CCH has proven it's inabilaty to produce consistant quality. I don't care if they or anyone else test every cam I still wouldn't buy them.
QC is used as a tool to insure that everything is running without problems not as a de-weeder to filter out bad parts.
Do you actually believe that when a QC department [of a small company] finds some bad parts that the head dirtbag can't override his emplyees. What's to stop him/her from plucking the bad part out of a control batch and them saying "Their OK just ship them".
There's no Q-SWAT team busting down the doors to a company.
What you do get is a bad reputation with your customer as not being able to manufacture a product to their specifications.
Bottom line CCH may have been a quality manufacturer but now it's a TURD.
You can't polish a turd You just gotta flush.
Why are you so hell bent on Aliens? Seems that you need justification from the climbing community to continue to climb on and/or purchase new Alien cams.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 4, 2007, 6:55 AM
Post #25 of 59
(7522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
rocknice2 wrote: Why are you so hell bent on Aliens? Seems that you need justification from the climbing community to continue to climb on and/or purchase new Alien cams.
Quite simple - they work better than everything else. And they have saved my ass more times than I can count.
I'm not looking for any sort of "justification" to keep using them. I've got 3 sets and I know every single one of them is solid. C3's? Tried 'em and they're just OK. Ultralights? Too small for my fingers. Zeros? They're the closest to the Aliens, but they still don't place as well.
I just don't want to see the backlash against CCH put them out of business, especially if they are able to get their act together. (That is why I asked whether people would buy "made by BD/Metolius" Aliens.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
