|
billcoe_
Aug 6, 2007, 11:47 PM
Post #51 of 59
(1747 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
shimanilami wrote: In a couple more days, we'll see what Metolius has up its sleeves, and maybe then all of this will be moot. Let's hope it's not another C3-like disappointment. "Aliens by Metolius, but with machined cam stops" would be bad-ass.
Absolutley! I don't know why people don't see any Metolius failures as they've been out longer than CCH, including all the different styles including reg. cams must have a shitload more out in the field and I'll bet they get whipped on more.
I heard of the tiniest one, the one for bodyweight only aid placements failing on a whipper and that's been it. One instance, and it should have failed.
I'd just hate to see someone hurt bad, put in a wheelchair as a quad, for no reason. I worked at the VA hospital for 4 years, that shit sucks worse than most people might think.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Aug 7, 2007, 1:49 AM
Post #52 of 59
(1705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
wb3 wrote: And will that suffice, assuming there is not a design flaw at issue?
Check here for another post I made in another thread which might be more relevant to this thread even (thought I was posting it here, it fact. oops).
|
|
|
|
|
domu888
Aug 7, 2007, 2:09 AM
Post #53 of 59
(1696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2007
Posts: 111
|
stymingersfink wrote: wb3 wrote: And will that suffice, assuming there is not a design flaw at issue? I would have to doubt a design flaw to be the heart of this issue. Perhaps the design could and should be updated a tad, because as I understand it the patent is about to expire, which generally means the patent is almost 20 (or is that 25) years old. A significant upgrade to the patent could extend protection another 20 years perhaps, IDK, as I'm not a patent lawyer or even anything close.
As I work in the patent field, I can tell you that a US patent lasts for a maximum of 20 years assuming that the holder pays all the appropriate renewal fees. After that anyone can use and manufacture a device using the information disclosed in the patent. Of course, other companies can't go around selling cams also called "aliens": that's a trademark, which is a different thing completely.
Having said that the patent expires soon doesn't mean of course that the design hasn't been upgraded recently, it just means that the underlying technology is protected from use by unlicensed rivals. Of course, the severe competition between companies and their respective patents means that cams cannot often be upgraded using a rival company's patented technology, except under license, which can be extremely expensive, but sometimes worth it: take Wild country for example, who have license agreements with DMM.
I think the expiry of their patent would be a big problem though for CCH: CCH is a relatively small company in the climbing world and they would lose out to bigger competitors without the patent. However hard it might be, it might be time to consider license agreements with a rival and combine technologies. Think how sweet a cam that could be! All the good points of the best cams combined ... though maybe I'm dreaming.
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Aug 7, 2007, 5:52 AM
Post #54 of 59
(1667 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
wb3 wrote: Now let's suppose CCH's testing procedure is not entirely trustworthy. What to do next?
|
|
|
|
|
cellardoor
Aug 7, 2007, 4:02 PM
Post #55 of 59
(1620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Posts: 206
|
question,
so i looked at the pictures of the two tensile tested cams that failed at 1.1k and 1.2k. What kind of torque does that method or rigging the head with webbing produce? It seems abit sketch to me to weight it from one side of the head. In the picture of the cam being stressed you can see an uneven line of force as the cam head is bent at an angle.
Does this test seem like a valid one? I noticed on the pull testing picutres that cch posted, the used a metal mount that evenly weights the head of the cam.
Any thought that the method of attachment might have caused premature failure in the above mentioned cams?
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Aug 7, 2007, 4:38 PM
Post #56 of 59
(1599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
cellardoor wrote: question, so i looked at the pictures of the two tensile tested cams that failed at 1.1k and 1.2k. What kind of torque does that method or rigging the head with webbing produce? It seems abit sketch to me to weight it from one side of the head. In the picture of the cam being stressed you can see an uneven line of force as the cam head is bent at an angle. Does this test seem like a valid one? I noticed on the pull testing picutres that cch posted, the used a metal mount that evenly weights the head of the cam. Any thought that the method of attachment might have caused premature failure in the above mentioned cams?
CCH argued against such testing on the May 31st entry on their "news" page:
http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/alien_news.html wrote: May 31 2007 The UIAA standard for testing frictional anchors(cams) is EN12276. All certification labs test cams to these standards. Testing an Alien by threading a cord under the cams and then applying force is not a valid test and it doesn't simulate use of the cam in a placement. In use, the cable eye can pivot in the direction of the force and also allow the cable stem to take the flex over its entire length With a cord under the cams and around the cable eye, the eye is twisted so that all the bending force is located at just one point: the base of the cable eye. This places undue stress at one point and can cause premature breakage, similar to placing the stem over an edge.
I think I asked about this on one of the other threads here but never heard any feedback on it...
However, the results they posted here looked like they were just looping cord under the lobes. I couldn't see anything else in the low. res photos they provide and there is no descriptions of the attachment
|
|
|
|
|
domu888
Aug 9, 2007, 2:13 PM
Post #57 of 59
(1517 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2007
Posts: 111
|
The pictures on their website don't seem to match the setup shown on the UIAA website http://www.uiaa.ch/...rictionalAnchors.pdf.
I think they will just have to make sure the testing is done by an UIAA approved lab as listed on the UIAA website.
(This post was edited by domu888 on Aug 13, 2007, 4:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
domu888
Aug 14, 2007, 7:13 AM
Post #58 of 59
(1407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2007
Posts: 111
|
I did some research regarding UIAA certification for another thread http://www.rockclimbing.com/...um.cgi?post=1655445;
Aliens still have a UIAA certificate, but those are valid for 3 years. That means it is possible that the new design is still covered by the old design's certificate though i don't know for sure. It would be nice to get the opinion of someone who deals with UIAA more often.
|
|
|
|
|
swede
Aug 14, 2007, 8:31 AM
Post #59 of 59
(1397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 133
|
russwalling wrote: yes I would believe you.
This quotation basically says it all about the Alien threads.
I had been trying to follow ALL of this written about Aliens - in the end everything boils down to the abovementioned who you should believe since third party facts are lacking. For example, one thread of much interest was the "Souders Crack", these guys have not been heard of for months - trust or not trust?
There are people (on both side in this issue) to whom I would entrust my life. Wise - probably not since I will most probably never meet them. And even if I met them I will spend to little time with them to really know them.
Since "current situation" will probably remain unclear - each and everyone of us have to make up our minds: does the risk of climbing with cams made by CCH outweight the advantages of the Alien design? I think some people will be seriously hurt because giving up using CCH cams and others will be seriously hurt because of using Alens if the QC is still that bad. Which of the two which will be the worst we might never know.
Clearly, if CCH had had a better QC from the start we would all have been better off. But a few dollars poorer for some extra QC costs.
(This post was edited by swede on Aug 14, 2007, 10:44 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
