By Aric Datesman
May 19, 2009
| JLP wrote: EDIT: And hey - if you're expecting to hear back from CCH about a 5+ yr old issue - GFL! You're well composed thoughts likely went into the same trash bin as the 1000+ plus letters before you, many from retailers who have since dropped CCH - probably several more from various lawyers!
No doubt. But informing them is the right thing to do, so that's what I'm doing. I have little doubt that I'll either be ignored or attacked, but am hoping that he does the right thing for once. | 
FLAG |
By Malcolm Daly
From Boulder, CO
May 19, 2009
| Good on 'ya Aric for doing the right thing. JLP and Aric are saying the same thing here, I think, but in different ways. If pull testing to failure shows a big range of failure modes that indicates an out-of-control manufacturing process. Proof-testing, on the other hand defines a load which, at a minimum, the piece will exceed when loaded. I think what Aric is proposing that Dave do is to personally proof test the gear to some load that he is comfortable climbing above. |
FLAG |
By Brian Scoggins
From Laramie, WY
May 19, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: Meh, I suppose so, but only to a point... I just don't think that proof testing necessarily damages the product. But then again, with how out of control their process appear maybe I do agree. Anyway, seeing as I really should be working on the report I really shouldn't be debating the usefulness and validity of proof testing. I think it would be a worthwhile conversation, but for another time. :-)
Aliens have always used an incredibly soft alloy for their lobes, so pull testing them to any meaningful amount (say 5-10kn) will deform the lobes. And that's kind of a problem.
The Aliens have the absolute best design on the market. But as I said, they simply aren't reliable. Zeros are the next best thing, and even then, they have such skinny lobes that an old (ca 1998) alien inspires more confidence. |
FLAG |
By JLP
From The Internet
May 19, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: No doubt. But informing them is the right thing to do, so that's what I'm doing. I have little doubt that I'll either be ignored or attacked, but am hoping that he does the right thing for once.
Yeah yeah - the best cam in its class made by the worst manufacturer. It's kind of a shame. |
FLAG |
By Dave Cummings
From Louisville, CO
May 19, 2009
| I called CCH and they told me that they pull every cable, prior to putting the cam together, to 1750lb. That is def more than most of us will put on it durring a fall. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
May 19, 2009
| Thanks Mal. Given what we talked about Saturday and how he treated the guy who started the last recall I was a bit hesitant to open myself for that kind of treatment, but after a long talk with Rich at Rock&Snow (they still carry Aliens) convinced me to try and let Dave take ownership of it. Had this how-reliable-are-Aliens thread not happened to have come up today I would have kept my mouth shut until talking with Dave. He still hasn't responded to my email from yesterday, but I only just sent him the pics a couple minutes ago and will try calling in an hour or two. In the meantime I'm going to see if Rich got through to him as I'd rather not walk into a call to Dave blind.
BTW, we've been kicking this around in the mod forum on RC and absolutely will not allow the ugliness that the monkeys over there let loose happen again. My results will be posted in The Lab, which is a highly moderated forum and it looks like any ugliness will be squashed immediately. The monkeys won't be happy, but what happened last time did no one any good.
BTWx2- In my email I told Dave that I'd hold off on saying anything on RC until after he makes an announcement, provided he does it today or tomorrow.
Brian- I don't think "soft" is how I would put it... The claim on their website to use 6061T6 for their lobes, which should come out ~55-60 Rockwell B scale in hardness. The two lobes I sent out for testing a while back (from a different Red) came out ~45 Rockwell B, so either they're not using the material they say they are or screwing up the heat treatment. I suspect the latter, but that's based on my test results and 3rd hand information from someone who supposedly worked for CCH at one time. |
FLAG |
By Brian Scoggins
From Laramie, WY
May 19, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: Thanks Mal. Given what we talked about Saturday and how he treated the guy who started the last recall I was a bit hesitant to open myself for that kind of treatment, but after a long talk with Rich at Rock&Snow (they still carry Aliens) convinced me to try and let Dave take ownership of it. Had this how-reliable-are-Aliens thread not happened to have come up today I would have kept my mouth shut until talking with Dave. He still hasn't responded to my email from yesterday, but I only just sent him the pics a couple minutes ago and will try calling in an hour or two. In the meantime I'm going to see if Rich got through to him as I'd rather not walk into a call to Dave blind. BTW, we've been kicking this around in the mod forum on RC and absolutely will not allow the ugliness that the monkeys over there let loose happen again. My results will be posted in The Lab, which is a highly moderated forum and it looks like any ugliness will be squashed immediately. The monkeys won't be happy, but what happened last time did no one any good. BTWx2- In my email I told Dave that I'd hold off on saying anything on RC until after he makes an announcement, provided he does it today or tomorrow. Brian- I don't think "soft" is how I would put it... The claim on their website to use 6061T6 for their lobes, which should come out ~55-60 Rockwell B scale in hardness. The two lobes I sent out for testing a while back (from a different Red) came out ~45 Rockwell B, so either they're not using the material they say they are or screwing up the heat treatment. I suspect the latter, but that's based on my test results and 3rd hand information from someone who supposedly worked for CCH at one time.
I have many friends who used to work there (I do live in Laramie after all). There's a small probability that I know your source.
I was just basing my statement on the old design statements on CCH's now defunct previous webpage, as well as Climbing magazine reviews and a variety of other things. Furthermore, every alien I've ever worked with tended to gouge a lot easier. I can't speculate about the whys (there's a reason I stay out of the Lab at RC), but the whats are quite clear to me. |
FLAG |
By Russ Walling
From www.FishProducts.com
May 19, 2009
| Dave Cummings wrote: I called CCH and they told me that they pull every cable, prior to putting the cam together, to 1750lb. That is def more than most of us will put on it durring a fall.
But isn't that a cable loop test only? I believe they pull the cable with a loop on each end to some rating. That test does you zero good when the head pops off at 150lbs. Oh, and even ones marked "tensile tested" have failed at low loads. FACT. |
FLAG |
By Dave Cummings
From Louisville, CO
May 19, 2009
| no they attach the head and pull test it before they put on the axle and lobes |
FLAG |
By mr.dobo
May 19, 2009
| JLP wrote: Seems a lot of people can't shake their fanboy emotional attachment. I'd imagine that alone will float the company for some time, at least until the recent lawsuits kick in. I'd agree they place quite well, perhaps the best in some situations, but I can't say I think they are safe or worth the tradeoff in the complete lack of faith I have when looking down at one. There's nothing quantitative they offer. BD, for example, states a 3 sigma breaking strength. Not that I care about breaking strength, however, it says a process is in place to quantitatively measure and monitor outgoing product in a meaningful way. You have to break things to get that. Pull testing is meaningless. Anyway, CCH doesn't have it. It's absolutely surprising to me that they haven't put statistical process control in place given all the hassles, especially since it's so 101 to the rest of the manufacturing world. It basically says to me a bullheaded idiot is running the place. That said, no thanks. Maybe it's 1/10,000 - but is that one mine? BTW, if you are climbing with a dimpled Alien and you think that's cool - you're an idiot!! Just gotta call that one out for what it is. There are people walking around with screws in their bones and metal plates in their heads due to those things. Maybe you're one of them and just forgot?
I'm no expert on any of this, so this may be a case of apples and oranges, but a quick scan of some info from the web yields:
3 Sigma quality standard of 99.73% translates to 2,700 PPM failures (dunno how they arrived at that #) in a one-step manufacturing process, so 1/10,000 would seem to be superior to 3 Sigma, or 100 PPM failures.
In a multi-step process, If Three Sigma quality levels (99.97% yield) are obtained from every step in, for example, a ten step process, the quality level at the end of the process will contain 26,674 defects per million!
Companies such as BD test their gear for breaking strength, not manufacturing defects, although it would be interesting to better understand the relationship between the two.
Consider what Three Sigma quality would mean if applied to other processes:
Virtually no modern computer would function.
10,800,000 healthcare claims would be mishandled each year.
18,900 US Savings bonds would be lost every month.
54,000 checks would be lost each night by a single large bank.
4,050 invoices would be sent out incorrectly each month by a modest-sized telecommunications company.
540,000 erroneous call details would be recorded each day from a regional telecommunications company.
270,000,000 (270 million) erroneous credit card transactions would be recorded each year in the United States.
Climbing is dangerous! Proper training and experience cannot be substituted for a reliance on gear. Any piece of gear could fail at any time for a host of reasons. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
May 19, 2009
| Hey Russ,
I saw something a while back (I think on CCH's website) showing how they test it. The take a double length of cable, braze a head on each end, pull it with pins through each head and then cut it in half for 2 stem assemblies. This strikes me as a fine way to do it. Additionally I just got off the phone with Rich @ R&S and Dave said yesterday that they still test each assembly and pull it to 1750 lb-force (??? I think that's the number Rich said).
EDIT- Wow. 2 pages of discussion with no ugliness. Definitely not RC. |
FLAG |
By Russ Walling
From www.FishProducts.com
May 19, 2009
| Dave Cummings wrote: no they attach the head and pull test it before they put on the axle and lobes
Then how in the name of Satan do these heads keep popping off? Even on tested ones? |
FLAG |
By Dave Cummings
From Louisville, CO
May 19, 2009
| The heads were only popping off the older ones any new alien you buy is bomber |
FLAG |
By Russ Walling
From www.FishProducts.com
May 19, 2009
| Dave Cummings wrote: The heads were only popping off the older ones any new alien you buy is bomber
Maybe you are not getting this part:
Aliens marked "tested" by CCH have failed at low loads, a mechanical failure, not rock or placement related. How is this explained? |
FLAG |
By Dave Cummings
From Louisville, CO
May 19, 2009
| no reason for things to get ugly, sucks you had a bad at experience at RC |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
May 19, 2009
| Russ Walling wrote: Then how in the name of Satan do these heads keep popping off? Even on tested ones?
I don't have an answer on that one, Russ. From what I recall this assembly/test process came about towards the end of the recall fiasco and I don't personally know of any recent-manufacture failures. The other Red I killed a while back was dated 11/06 and failed 11.32kN (typical break at the base of the head failure), but that's close enough to the 12kN rating that it may have been equipment issues on my part (although I doubt it). |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
May 19, 2009
| Dave Cummings wrote: no reason for things to get ugly, sucks you had a bad at experience at RC
Heh... I'm one of the Mods there Dave, ugly happens all the time. Except in The Lab, because I rule it with an iron fist! :-) |
FLAG |
By JLP
From The Internet
May 19, 2009
| Russ Walling wrote: How is this explained?
Hahahhaa. Incompetence?
Like I said, if they are breaking around 2.2k, and they pull test to 1.7k, and they have an out of control process - ie, a very wide range of breaking strengths - then there are lots of time bombs out there that have been "tested". |
FLAG |
By Russ Walling
From www.FishProducts.com
May 19, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: Heh... I'm one of the Mods there Dave, ugly happens all the time. Except in The Lab, because I rule it with an iron fist! :-)
So you banned JT512 and his free flowing inane minutiae on every test or subject? It might be worth a visit now if that is even remotely the case. |
FLAG |
By WiledHorse
From NoGo
May 19, 2009
| maybe CCH's slings on their aliens should be screamers!?
(not being serious) |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
May 19, 2009
| Russ Walling wrote: So you banned JT512 and his free flowing inane minutiae on every test or subject? It might be worth a visit now if that is even remotely the case.
Heh. He's a character, isn't he? He and I had a blowup a while back but have since come to an understanding and he's been rather helpful of late. Although I think someone else pissed him off big time a month or so ago and he hasn't been around much. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
May 19, 2009
| Russ Walling wrote: Then how in the name of Satan do these heads keep popping off? Even on tested ones?
Hey Russ- Here's the pic on CCH's site showing how they've been testing the stems since Jan 2006. Its way down the bottom of this page. Do you know of any failures of ones manufactured after Jan 2006?
|
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
May 19, 2009
| Dave Cummings wrote: I called CCH and they told me that they pull every cable, prior to putting the cam together, to 1750lb. That is def more than most of us will put on it durring a fall.
Hey Dave- was the number you used 307-721-9385? That's the one on the website and I didn't get an answer. Eventually a machine picked up with no message, so I left one in hopes it was the right number.
BTW, 1750lb is only 7.78kN and I've hit 5kN bouncing on a runner without too much effort. Didn't feel too good, but not too hard to do. Falling onto a daisy could probably hit 7.78 easily (and feel even less good). |
FLAG |
By Dave Cummings
From Louisville, CO
May 19, 2009
| yea that is the number, try again a few times and the receptionist will pick up |
FLAG |
By Russ Walling
From www.FishProducts.com
May 19, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: Hey Russ- Here's the pic on CCH's site showing how they've been testing the stems since Jan 2006. Its way down the bottom of this page. Do you know of any failures of ones manufactured after Jan 2006?
So, it would follow that since Jan of '06, any unit after that date should be stamped tested, and none before that date would be stamped.
But, how is it that there are pics of and I've heard of aliens stamped "tested" have broken at low loads? I can't explain it. Maybe it has something to do with the angle of pull and an overheated cable insertion? Straight pull = ok to xxx lbs, but an angled pull, as in a placement, snaps off the super rigid cable/head interface at below the tested amount? |
FLAG |
|
[ Forums > Climbing Gear Discussion ]
RSS Feed
