Fixe PLX HCR - "New"? Metal as alt to Titanium?

Mike13 wrote:Are you aware that one of the most powerful tools in failure analysis is just visual inspection of the fracture surface? SEM-EDS would be nice to provide further evidence for the theory found visually. Hardness and tensile testing--helps you determine material susceptibility to this phenomenon, not what happened. You could get confirmation via a metallurgical cross section if you are allowed to destroy the sample. SCC has a very distinctive cracking pattern.

SEM & EDS data from a 316L climbing hanger cracked by SCC.

Yes. Note the surface of the cross section. What you see greatly magnified here is also obvious when you look at the surface of a bolt cracked by SCC, as seen in photos previously posted, and in thousands of broken bolts world-wide.

SEM cross-section of a 304 hanger laced with many microscopic cracks that were invisible to the naked eye.

Okay, CSA, if you're so smart, if this is NOT SCC, what is it?

20 kN wrote: No, the rock is very contiguous. I've never hit a pocket or had anything come out.

Then you have an interesting case ;-)

Sherlock Holmes famously said that if you eliminate all the other possibilities, then what remains, as unlikely as if may seem, is the answer.

My best guess is that a crack started outside the glue and propagated inwards. Is there a detectable crack (microscope) in that area?

John Byrnes wrote: Perhaps for metals in other applications and other environments. But unless you'd like to identify a different corrosion/failure mechanism found in climbing bolts, what I say is blatantly true. Professional metallurgists have done all of that many times over the last 17 years. SCC has been the conclusion of every one of them. The UIAA conducted their own tests, which confirmed SCC, and has published a new standard in response. Do you know more than they do? Or have you got some other hypothesis that explains thousands of stainless bolts from many different manufacturers breaking in the same manner all around the world? If not, shut up and stop calling me a liar.

I don't want to go in circles with you for weeks. I've tried to avoid spilling my background in the field because I don't like to spray about it, but I used to work as a metallurgist in a testing lab and got my degree in materials engineering. It's clear your knowledge on metals as a whole is limited to some paper(s) that you read.

I'm not saying your conclusion is incorrect, but I will still call you out for your blanket statements like:

"Because non-stainless steels don't break like that: they would have ductile deformation, or be obviously rusted to a point where the thickness of the material is significantly reduced."

"Non-stainless steels don't break like this. The granular surface is classic SCC. I've seen this so many times I don't need to have some do a formal analysis."

The fact is, without a formal analysis (and any expertise on the subject), you're not qualified to make these statements. And you're just spreading misinformation to other people.

What you should have said was "this is consistent with examples of SCC I've read about." That would be fine as that's the truth. Yelling louder than everyone everyone else and telling me to "shut up and stop calling [you] a liar" does not make you an expert on the subject.

And for the record, I'm not calling myself an expert, but please do not act like one yourself.

Mike13 wrote: I'm glad you said it so I didn't have to. John may have been a little short on data in his first post; however, your first post simply listed an excessive list of tests. Running all of those would be a joke. I doubt even a legal investigation would run all of those tests. The only reason I called you out is because you violated guideline #1. Anyone who has ever done consulting (especially in this field) would know that listing credentials is a joke to other engineers. Failure mechanism (SCC) is something that can be stated as a fact. The only time you would need more testing is if someone wanted to know the root cause of the failure. You don't know John's background. SOOOOOO ANYWAYS...Fixe PLX HCR.....

It's not a joke to run all of those. They're not difficult and you can have all the results in less than a day. Those are pretty standard tests for any failure analysis (even non-legal), unless explicitly stated by the client what tests they want done. And on legal investigations, you'd run all the tests you can because if it goes to court and they ask "why didn't you do XXX test?", you're in trouble.

And telling someone to "shut up" doesn't violate guideline #1? Come on.

Yes, it can be stated as a fact. I've said I'm not denying it. BUT looking at something and stating the cause as definite will get you into trouble. You can make a reasonable assumption based on prior data and papers, and that's it. There's nothing wrong with leaving the door open to new possibilities (I've seen it in previous work).

You're right, I don't know his background. But it's clear that materials is not his background, which is the only reason I came into this thread. I don't want people lurking in here and getting misinformed.

This is going to be my last post. I said I'm not here to go in circles with people who won't listen. I've attempted to be reasonable in pointing out statements that are incorrect, but if no one wants to hear it then so be it.

Mike13 wrote: SOOOOOO ANYWAYS...Fixe PLX HCR.....

Yes Please. I've followed along in the metals drama across multiple forums for the better part of a decade and a half. It took less pages but this most recent one is standard for them all. The interest in PLX was simply that it MIGHT ADD more to the usual conversation i.e. a cost competitive non-Ti alternative that's "good enough" for all but the harshest SCC scenarios.

Until we find out more the round and round will continue.

mattm wrote: The interest in PLX was simply that it MIGHT ADD more to the usual conversation i.e. a cost competitive non-Ti alternative that's "good enough" for all but the harshest SCC scenarios.

It depends on what you mean by "good enough".

So we know that S300 stainless in Thailand only lasts (is safe) for a year or so; clearly not good enough.

We also know it will last about 10 years in Kalymnos. Not good enough again in most peoples' opinion, especially if you're the one doing the work to replace them all, and you know you'll have to do it again in 10 years. (You could make a career of it.)

So while all the test results aren't in yet on candidate "boutique" stainless steels, we do have Prosek's lab results and preliminary results from the UIAA field-tests in Thailand, and yes, they will be better than Series 300 and 904, but they are not impervious: they definitely corrode in the conditions of interest.

So, perhaps they will last 30 or even 50 years in Kalymnos. Is that good enough, when for a few dollars more you could use Ti, which is expected to last centuries? What about the "cost" of having 3-4 holes for every clip? Or of removing the old unsafe bolts? The stains on the rock? Etc.

If you are a long-term investor, which land-managers should be, spending an extra 10% now for a permanent solution is clearly better than needing to spend the same amount (or more) every 30 years.

csa wrote: It's not a joke to run all of those.

Yes it is. It's an old joke that goes like this: A clown sees something on the sidewalk. Looks like shit. Smells like shit. Feels like shit. Tastes like shit. Gee, he's glad he didn't step in it.

When you've seen hundreds of examples of SCC, and the "vanilla" test results always come back the same way, it's a joke to keep doing them. You can look at the cracks and other evidence and skip the unnecessary bullshit.

csa wrote: You're right, I don't know his background. But it's clear that materials is not his background, which is the only reason I came into this thread. I don't want people lurking in here and getting misinformed. This is going to be my last post. I said I'm not here to go in circles with people who won't listen. I've attempted to be reasonable in pointing out statements that are incorrect, but if no one wants to hear it then so be it.

I've been centrally involved in SCC in climbing bolts for 18 years. I've learned directly from many of the metallurgists involved (Fuller, Shelton, Sjong, Jarvis). I've done field work. I was a member of the team that developed the world's first Ti bolt. I've consulted with bolt manufacturers. I've been published three times and have consulted for the AF, UIAA and several climbing organizations. These people consider me an expert.

If you have a example of something I've posted that's wrong, then lets have it. But if you just want me to be pedantic in order to clog up the discussion, I won't do it.

csa wrote: I'm not saying your conclusion is incorrect, but I will still call you out for your blanket statements like: "Because non-stainless steels don't break like that: they would have ductile deformation, or be obviously rusted to a point where the thickness of the material is significantly reduced." "Non-stainless steels don't break like this. The granular surface is classic SCC. I've seen this so many times I don't need to have some do a formal analysis." The fact is, without a formal analysis (and any expertise on the subject), you're not qualified to make these statements. And you're just spreading misinformation to other people.

I'm not making blanket statements. I'm making statements about a VERY narrow slice of metallurgy and failure analysis specific to SCC in climbing bolts. An area I'm sure I know more about than you do, and I try to express in layman's terms.

Byrnes universal bolt

Your bolt sure gets around. It appeared in a thread about Costa Rica in Oct 2014, became a bolt from Sardinia in June 2015 and now its from Sicily.

Jim Titt wrote: Your bolt sure gets around. It appeared in a thread about Costa Rica in Oct 2014, became a bolt from Sardinia in June 2015 and now its from Sicily.

Yes, it's a very educational photo because it shows that 1) SCC can happen deep in the hole where you can't see it, and 2) the classic granular surface of an SCC break, with no ductile deformation or reduction in thickness (which you'd get from rust).

If I previously said this was from Sardinia, then I was wrong. I checked and it's from Sicily.

Looks like Fixe is moving most of their 304/316 over to PLX. There are some products they've left as "INOX" but most are now moved exclusively to PLX. Triplex and Wedge bolts included as well as an intriguing Glue In - the "Hely"- I can't tell if you have to trench the Hely or not - the twist makes me THINK no?

Fixe PLX 2017

Fixe Hely

mattm wrote:Looks like Fixe is moving most of their 304/316 over to PLX. There are some products they've left as "INOX" but most are now moved exclusively to PLX. Triplex and Wedge bolts included as well as an intriguing Glue In - the "Hely"- I can't tell if you have to trench the Hely or not - the twist makes me THINK no?

"Imitation is the best the best form of flattery." :-)

Jim Titt wrote: "Imitation is the best the best form of flattery." :-)

Thought of yours when I saw them Jim. Doubt we'll see that stuff here anytime soon. Waiting on your announcement in 316 ;)

mattm wrote:Looks like Fixe is moving most of their 304/316 over to PLX. There are some products they've left as "INOX" but most are now moved exclusively to PLX. Triplex and Wedge bolts included as well as an intriguing Glue In - the "Hely"- I can't tell if you have to trench the Hely or not - the twist makes me THINK no?

Where does it say in there that they are no longer selling A2 stainless steel versions of bolts?

20 kN wrote: Where does it say in there that they are no longer selling A2 stainless steel versions of bolts?

While not completely clear in those screen grabs from their 16-17 catalog
the Triplex is ONLY listed in PLX and their Wedges in either PLX or Zinc. On the next page they do have some other items listed as INOX, PLX or Cr but I don't see and mention of 304/316 anything. Maybe they just left those items off but it's a big omission if so.

Given the new standards are minimum 316 outside and their claim that PLX is less expensive, it would make sense to only have PLX. MEC still lists the 304 hangers but it's telling that the new PLX are on there for the old 304 price - perhaps clearing them out?

Not claiming to know everything here, just pointing out what I see in their latest catalog.

mattm wrote: On the next page they do have some other items listed as INOX, PLX or Cr but I don't see and mention of 304/316 anything.

Inox is short for inoxidable which is Spanish for stainless.

Interesting looking at the new catalog.

The area around me has pretty heavily used the 3/8" x 3.5" stainless double-wedge model from Fixe. Looking at the new catalog it looks like that only may exist in zinc-plated now.

Anyone have any idea if additional models/configurations would be added to this for the North American market or which subset of this catalog will be produced in imperial sizes? I assume that this is likely an international English catalog.

I also heard a rumor that Fixe's parent company is no longer using Fixe Hardware to distribute the Alien cam line in the US. Does anyone have an idea if this is just for Aliens or is none of the TechRock product portfolio going through Fixe Hardware?

The double clip bolt was the EXA from UPAT (part of Fischer) and no longer made it appears. They were made for a specific purpose in the construction industry and not as good as normal bolts especially in soft rock.

Jim Titt wrote:The double clip bolt was the EXA from UPAT (part of Fischer) and no longer made it appears. They were made for a specific purpose in the construction industry and not as good as normal bolts especially in soft rock.

I like knowing the details. What was the purpose and how is the double clip design not as good as a single?

20 kN wrote: Inox is short for inoxidable which is Spanish for stainless.

Yes. I know. And there are exactly FOUR items with INOX listed - One Buhler and 3 old style glue ins. Nothing else. Everything else is PLX or Zn/Cr

Greg Kuchyt wrote: Anyone have any idea if additional models/configurations would be added to this for the North American market or which subset of this catalog will be produced in imperial sizes?

Probably none. I dont think Fixe Faders' products have ever been made in imperial sizes. All of the bolts I've placed that was made by them were metric. It's interesting they are getting rid of 304 in place of their new material, but they are still making carbon steel bolts. If they really want to ensure developers place long-lasting material, they could start by discontinuing their zinc plated stuff which wont last 50 years in all but desert climates (and often not even then).