@Tradster- I suspect that the failure mode of the U-stem Camalots that Clyde is talking about is the same one I found when pulling a pair of them a while back. Basically the axles begin to deform, which lets the lobes rotate further and then the opposite axle drops into the divot on the lobe and the thing loses most of its holding power. My writeup is over on RC and there's a link to video of the test over there as well. Link

@Clyde- Yeah, RC can get out of hand at times but that thread is relatively clean. Certainly not as clean as this one, but damned good for RC. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what to do about the two pre-recall braze failures I've found. I feel quite strongly it warrants an expansion of the earlier recall since its an obvious manufacturing defect, but that ball's in CCH's court at this point. I'd still like to see stuff sent out to a lab for testing, but without someone to fund it that's not going to happen. The data/pics/etc on the 22 more Aliens that I pulled will be posted sometime early next week most likely (once I get a chance to pull some of the brazes to failure) and I think clearly shows that CCH is rather optimistic with their ratings. The rating thing is something that Rich at Rock&Snow was planning on talking with them about... he wasn't so happy to see them pulling under spec.

@Phoenix- I think you meant aluminum, not steel.

I thought I recalled something in the UCC about implied warranty term, or something like that. It would mean CCH couldn't be held liable for gear over x # yrs old. I'm sure a legal type could say more. As others have said, as well, none of this gear is unused. Sorry, I don't think you have a case, and they likely know it. I would likely do the same.

I've often thought to myself, as well, that given the resources, I could create the most kick ass test lab ever for every product out there I've ever bought and wondered a little about - cars, climbing gear, tools, etc. Given my background, I'm quite certain I could come up with mind numbing discipline the best and most insightful test data ever.

But, to assume the manufacturers (other than CCH) don't already do this stuff and quietly feed it back into their designs w/o boring and confusing the shit out of their paying customers, as well as alerting their competition to their design processes, is a little naive. In the end, if you don't have a feedback to the design variables, or even control over them, your testing is a waste of time. Consumer Reports is selling a magazine subscription, not providing some sort of generous public service. The UIAA is fine, IMO. There is only so much they can and should do.

JLP I don't think the testing is a waste of time. Maybe not overly useful in getting them to recall cams or for them to change their process. But it shows the regular consumer how questionable the gear still is even if the new ones are claimed "safe". I would never have guessed that the soft aluminum deformation would contribute that much...

My bad... I misunderstood your post. Sorry about that.

I tend to believe that a manufacturing defect like this would have sparked an investigation at any other company, but yeah, I doubt CCH will do anything about it unless forced to. I'm hoping that my testing will help drive that since its better documented than the earlier ad-hoc testing that others have done, but time will tell. And AFAIK the lobe softness and axle deformation under spec hadn't been noted in any of the earlier testing. The mis-drilled axle holes had been, but I don't recall seeing much data on it.

Ok, off to set up the puller again and see where the brazes fail at.

Aric;

Thanks for the info on U-Stem Camalots. Might need to re-think my rack. Shit, I only have 14 of the suckers, so changing will be expensive. Still, I'd rather have them than Aliens.

I haven't seen the full write up but it seems that most of these are failing around 90% of their rating?

I would feel better if they just rated their cams to a lesser strength. I'd rather have cams rated to 10kn that consistently break at 11kn than have cams rated to 12kn that consistently broke at 11kn.

In the real world it's exactly the same but it's nice to have gear that meets or exceeds it's rating.

I'm a lot more concerned about the axle holes than anything right now.

It doesn't change anything for me, I'll be using mine as I have been. I just won't be replacing them with CCH if I ever lose or wear mine out.

Hey Tradster,

FWIW they held tenaciously as they slipped from the fixture, so as long as you only place them at the low end of their expansion they're likely fine. Its only when the divot comes into play that they go wonky. They remedied this design shortcoming in the single stem version and I've had no problems whatsoever with those.

Great Work Aric. After the last recall I said I'd only climb on old Aliens and returned my post 02 ones to REI...now it is no aliens.

As such I've got a blue 0800, a green 0302, a yellow 0402, and a red 0304 I've owned from the beginning I'd happily send you for destructive testing.

Just want to clarify that I think this is very good work by Aric - I'm just cynical. I know this stuff does take a lot of time to polish and get right, and it also takes a lot of money for samples and fixtures. I'm definitely not knocking his work or his time - just the whole stupidity of it all - this back of the process quality control thing bestowed upon us by the grievous incompetence that is CCH.

The results that Aric is getting actually make me feel a bit better. I actually wouldn't mind if ALL (this is the key part) aliens held 'only' 10kN. The fact that the lobes deform is alright and to be expected IMO. The soft lobe is a design feature and I understand the tradeoff with strength and I am OK with that (that's not to say that CCH shouldn't be accurately labeling their cams' kN limitations.)

Part of the reason I like the alien design is because of the softer lobes...I like how they bite into the rock and stay put when I set them. I only use their smallest cams, and when I am climbing thin crack, I don't expect them to take +8kN impacts because when I am placing small gear, I am usually trying to place more of it and not running it out.

That said, what DOES bother me, is the whole cable-pulling-out-of-stem mode of failure. This type of failure is not a known 'design feature', but rather shody craftsmanship. At least with the former mode of failure you can plan for it, but with the braze failure, it is a totally unforseen variable. As long as the braze testing that Aric is going to do goes well and when he cuts open the stems, they are FULL of braze, then I will be ok climbing on aliens again. Otherwise.....??

Thanks again Aric for testing this stuff. I am really looking forward to the cross section pictures of the stems.
Cheers.

I dont want to take a whipper on an alien after what I have read. I have one alien and it is going to be aid only now. I hope they get there shit together I loved their offsets.

Aric and everyone involved in this testing project thank you so much. Yes climbing is dangerous and we all know that but I like to have faith in my gear. What you guys are doing is a priceless service for us climbers putting our lives on this gear. Thanks!

In case anyone is still interested/following this, the results from the testing at Rock & Snow just went live... Link

This is gonna sound like a stupidass question...but how can I tell what's up with the Aliens I've been using? What do I look for on the piece? I have a hard time reading through all the technical stuff and I'd really appreciate some simple advice.

On another note: I was given four cams made by Trango. They look like they were made in the early 80's or late 70'd but they look like they're in great shape (especially after I cleaned em). What's the best way to find out about these things?

Any help, much appreciated.

Rob - relegating Aliens to aid sounds like a good idea at first, until you consider how serious the implications could be if you unwittingly discover a braze failure. Like after a long head/hook romp, you get in an Alien, then unknowingly pull-test it to failure. A1 would probably be OK, but A-hard might only up the sketch factor. At least when free climbing, you probably won't actually weight it.

Amanda - can you post some pics of your "new" cams?

Thanks for the suggestion on the cam fitting site. Will do.