By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| Hey Everybody,
Figured I'd just bump this thread rather than starting a new one...
Anyone happen to know the guy who had the Alien failure at Souder's Crack a couple years ago? He's "pinsandbones" on RC, but hasn't been on in a couple months and I'd like to get his contact info.
Long story short, I met with an investigator from the Consumer Product Safety Commission this morning and along with the 1.5" thick stack of documentation I gave them they'd like contact info for anyone who has been injured by a non-recall Alien. He's the only one I've heard about so I'm specifically looking for him, but I'll pass along contact info for anyone who didn't report their failure/injury as well.
Thanks!
-aric. | 
FLAG |
By JacobD
From Flagstaff, AZ
Jun 30, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: Hey Everybody, Figured I'd just bump this thread rather than starting a new one... Anyone happen to know the guy who had the Alien failure at Souder's Crack a couple years ago? He's "pinsandbones" on RC, but hasn't been on in a couple months and I'd like to get his contact info. Long story short, I met with an investigator from the Consumer Product Safety Commission this morning and along with the 1.5" thick stack of documentation I gave them they'd like contact info for anyone who has been injured by a non-recall Alien. He's the only one I've heard about so I'm specifically looking for him, but I'll pass along contact info for anyone who didn't report their failure/injury as well. Thanks! -aric.
Why do you have it out for CCH so bad? Where you injured by a non recall Alien? |
FLAG |
By Anthony Baraff
From New York, NY
Jun 30, 2009
| JacobD wrote: Why do you have it out for CCH so bad? Where you injured by a non recall Alien?
I don't think he has it out for CCH any more than Ralph Nader had it out for GM. They are making a product which is unsafe due to improper manufacturing and they have made no effort to rectify or refute the ample evidence that has been provided to them about these flaws. It's not as though these flaws cause an inconvenience to the users, improperly constructed cams can cost someone their life. Shame on you for insinuating that Aric did anything less than a long overdue public service for the climbing community. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| Jacob-
I'd respond, but Anthony summarized things much better than I could.
Anthony- Thanks.
-aric. |
FLAG |
By Crag Dweller
From Denver, CO
Jun 30, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: Jacob- I'd respond, but Anthony summarized things much better than I could. Anthony- Thanks. -aric.
I'm glad someone is putting in the time and energy to make sure the climbing gear we rely on is, in fact, safe. That being said, you stated earlier that you wanted to allow CCH to handle this issue properly but you didn't really do that.
If you wanted to allow CCH an opportunity to address this before making it a public issue, you should have waited to post something to a public forum. Posting to this forum is the equivalent of issuing a press release. |
FLAG |
By JacobD
From Flagstaff, AZ
Jun 30, 2009
| I'm not implying that I don't think aliens are unsafe, or that CCH did anything to rectify the situation. I was just wondering why he personally has taken it upon himself to bring them down. CCH is a small local business in an economy where big corporations rule. Personally I think it is very important to support small local businesses instead of outsourcing to China (as another large climbing company did). I'm not planning on taking any big whippers on them, but I'll continue to use them for situations where they are the only thing that would work. Something is better than nothing. Also I've witnessed CCH donating lots of time and money to the climbing areas and environment around them. They are good people. Yes, they messed up, but I hope that they continue to make cams. If you don't trust them don't buy them or use them.
That said I do appreciate aric's time and money for testing to make sure that products are safe. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| Crag Dweller wrote: That being said, you stated earlier that you wanted to allow CCH to handle this issue properly but you didn't really do that. If you wanted to allow CCH an opportunity to address this before making it a public issue, you should have waited to post something to a public forum. Posting to this forum is the equivalent of issuing a press release.
As I recall allowing them a chance to take ownership of the issue is _exactly_ what I did. I contacted them prior to making anything public (to the extent that it was possible given that the initial testing was done at the NRR) and spent the better part of a week trying to get them to even acknowledge that there may have been a problem. From there they were kept up to date on everything I've done, including being sent the raw data from the testing at Rock&Snow the day after the testing was done (which was several weeks before any of it was made public. Even then just about the only thing they've done is question my professionalism, qualifications and background. Sorry if that came out harsh, but I absolutely gave them every chance to handle this on their own. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| JacobD wrote: I'm not implying that I don't think aliens are unsafe, or that CCH did anything to rectify the situation. I was just wondering why he personally has taken it upon himself to bring them down. CCH is a small local business in an economy where big corporations rule. Personally I think it is very important to support small local businesses instead of outsourcing to China (as another large climbing company did). I'm not planning on taking any big whippers on them, but I'll continue to use them for situations where they are the only thing that would work. Something is better than nothing. Also I've witnessed CCH donating lots of time and money to the climbing areas and environment around them. They are good people. Yes, they messed up, but I hope that they continue to make cams. If you don't trust them don't buy them or use them. That said I do appreciate aric's time and money for testing to make sure that products are safe.
Gotcha.
I agree with you on supporting the small, local guy but in CCH's case I think they are in need of a swift kick in the butt to get them to get their act together and stop putting out questionable gear. I'd be their #1 fan if it weren't for the manufacturing and QC issues and would love nothing more than to see them get that all under control. And if getting that to happen requires several months of my time doing a lot of testing and then eventually reporting them to the CPSC (after exhausting every available avenue of trying to work with them), well, then that's what it takes.
If we're lucky they'll come out of this a better run company that puts out reliable gear, but if not, well, someone will eventually be seriously hurt or killed due to their shoddy practices and they'll be put out of business by the resulting lawsuit. Personally I'm hoping for the former. |
FLAG |
By Crag Dweller
From Denver, CO
Jun 30, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: As I recall allowing them a chance to take ownership of the issue is _exactly_ what I did. I contacted them prior to making anything public (to the extent that it was possible given that the initial testing was done at the NRR) and spent the better part of a week trying to get them to even acknowledge that there may have been a problem. From there they were kept up to date on everything I've done, including being sent the raw data from the testing at Rock&Snow the day after the testing was done (which was several weeks before any of it was made public. Even then just about the only thing they've done is question my professionalism, qualifications and background. Sorry if that came out harsh, but I absolutely gave them every chance to handle this on their own.
I got the impression you posted comments to the forum at the same time you notified CCH of the issue. My apologies if my understanding was incorrect. |
FLAG |
By Anthony Baraff
From New York, NY
Jun 30, 2009
| JacobD wrote: I'm not implying that I don't think aliens are unsafe, or that CCH did anything to rectify the situation. I was just wondering why he personally has taken it upon himself to bring them down. CCH is a small local business in an economy where big corporations rule. Personally I think it is very important to support small local businesses instead of outsourcing to China (as another large climbing company did). I'm not planning on taking any big whippers on them, but I'll continue to use them for situations where they are the only thing that would work. Something is better than nothing. Also I've witnessed CCH donating lots of time and money to the climbing areas and environment around them. They are good people. Yes, they messed up, but I hope that they continue to make cams. If you don't trust them don't buy them or use them. That said I do appreciate aric's time and money for testing to make sure that products are safe.
If I ran a company and I discovered that I had released a product that, as a result of a design or manufacturing flaw, had a significant likelihood of killing or severely injuring one of my customers. I would be desperate to get everyone's ear through news conferences, press releases, interviews anything I could think of to let them know to send them back to me or stop using them, even if it ruined my business. I'd rather be broke than willfully complicit in murder.
Aliens are not sold in with a Surgeon General's warning. The responsibility can not be placed on the consumer to read every arcane website out there. That's why there are product recalls. When some nut job started putting cyanide in Tylenol in 1982, Johnson & Johnson didn't stay silent, they recalled every last bottle of Tylenol on the market to protect their consumers even though it wasn't their fault. CCH's silence is damning. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| Crag Dweller wrote: I got the impression you posted comments to the forum at the same time you notified CCH of the issue. My apologies if my understanding was incorrect.
Sorry about that Crag Dweller, I really didn't mean for that to come out harshly. Damned monkeys on RC get me all riled up....
But yeah, CCH was notified ahead of time on everything and every time I sent something I made strong recommendations that they get out ahead of the issue and take ownership of it. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| Anthony Baraff wrote: If I ran a company and I discovered that I had released a product that, as a result of a design or manufacturing flaw, had a significant likelihood of killing or severely injuring one of my customers. I would be desperate to get everyone's ear through news conferences, press releases, interviews anything I could think of to let them know to send them back to me or stop using them, even if it ruined my business. I'd rather be broke than willfully complicit in murder. Aliens are not sold in with a Surgeon General's warning. The responsibility can not be placed on the consumer to read every arcane website out there. That's why there are product recalls. When some nut job started putting cyanide in Tylenol in 1982, Johnson & Johnson didn't stay silent, they recalled every last bottle of Tylenol on the market to protect their consumers even though it wasn't their fault. CCH's silence is damning.
Even better example is Ed Leeper... A year or two ago he issued a recall on all of the hangers he made going back a decade or two even though he'd been out of the business for ages. I even recall seeing a full page ad about it in R&I! This is how pretty much every other gear manufacturer does things, so I'm not sure why some people don't hold CCH to the same standard... |
FLAG |
By JacobD
From Flagstaff, AZ
Jun 30, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: Gotcha. I agree with you on supporting the small, local guy but in CCH's case I think they are in need of a swift kick in the butt to get them to get their act together and stop putting out questionable gear. I'd be their #1 fan if it weren't for the manufacturing and QC issues and would love nothing more than to see them get that all under control. And if getting that to happen requires several months of my time doing a lot of testing and then eventually reporting them to the CPSC (after exhausting every available avenue of trying to work with them), well, then that's what it takes. If we're lucky they'll come out of this a better run company that puts out reliable gear, but if not, well, someone will eventually be seriously hurt or killed due to their shoddy practices and they'll be put out of business by the resulting lawsuit. Personally I'm hoping for the former.
I think what I have been trying to say came out wrong and haven't lived in Laramie, or been following the issue, for quite sometime. So I went back and read some of your old posts. My bad for posting without reading it all first. I didn't realize how much the non recall aliens have been failing below their rating. After reading all of the tests I may in fact take them off my rack. I still feel bad for them, and it sucks they haven't responded to this issue at all. Sorry to stir the pot. |
FLAG |
By Brian Scoggins
From Laramie, WY
Jun 30, 2009
| JacobD wrote: I think what I have been trying to say came out wrong and haven't lived in Laramie, or been following the issue, for quite sometime. So I went back and read some of your old posts. My bad for posting without reading it all first. I didn't realize how much the non recall aliens have been failing below their rating. After reading all of the tests I may in fact take them off my rack. I still feel bad for them, and it sucks they haven't responded to this issue at all. Sorry to stir the pot.
Thing is, I don't know anybody who works at CCH anymore. And you'll recall, Jake, that back in the day (pre-recall), it was a regular who's-who of strong Laramie climbers. I'm not sure if I'm just out of the loop or if it really has changed.
But I've followed Aric's work on rc.com, and its led me to shy away from Aliens until they get this squared away. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| JacobD wrote: I think what I have been trying to say came out wrong and haven't lived in Laramie, or been following the issue, for quite sometime. So I went back and read some of your old posts. My bad for posting without reading it all first. I didn't realize how much the non recall aliens have been failing below their rating. After reading all of the tests I may in fact take them off my rack. I still feel bad for them, and it sucks they haven't responded to this issue at all. Sorry to stir the pot.
Hey, no worries Jacob... Any stirring you've done is nowhere near the bashing I've taken over on RC. :-)
As you've probably noticed reading through the thread I've been extremely anal about how, when and what I did, as well as documenting all of it as I expected it to go poorly. As I see it the only way to see this to any kind of resolution is to have lots of data with impeccable documentation and complete transparency, which is what I've hopefully managed to provide.
I only want people to make informed decisions about their safety and the main thing my testing has shown is that the information regarding Aliens that people had been basing their decisions on is suspect at best.
Cheers,
-a. |
FLAG |
By Clyde
Jun 30, 2009
| Aric Datesman wrote: I only want people to make informed decisions about their safety and the main thing my testing has shown is that the information regarding Aliens that people had been basing their decisions on is suspect at best.
OTOH I would argue that anyone who bases their cam choice on the rating is a fool. It's a lousy standard that has little meaning in the real world. There are several other UIAA/CEN standards that are jokes as well. But climbers give them far more importance than they deserve. That Aliens don't always meet this test shouldn't be a concern, at all. The quality control issue is another matter but the UIAA test doesn't really get at that.
Alas, I fear your dealings with CCH were doomed from the start because of your association with rc.com. IIRC they were lynched by the rc.com mob the first time before they even had a chance to see the defective cam. No wonder Waggoner was disdainful of this new round of testing that singled out his product. Would have been better for one of the mags or the AAC act as a go between but too late now. |
FLAG |
By JacobD
From Flagstaff, AZ
Jun 30, 2009
| Brian Scoggins wrote: Thing is, I don't know anybody who works at CCH anymore. And you'll recall, Jake, that back in the day (pre-recall), it was a regular who's-who of strong Laramie climbers. I'm not sure if I'm just out of the loop or if it really has changed. But I've followed Aric's work on rc.com, and its led me to shy away from Aliens until they get this squared away.
Speaking of being out of touch, almost all of the folks I used to climb with in Laramie have moved elsewhere. I'll be home for a few weeks in August, would you be interested in getting out to Vedauwoo for a few pitches? |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| Clyde wrote: OTOH I would argue that anyone who bases their cam choice on the rating is a fool. It's a lousy standard that has little meaning in the real world. There are several other UIAA/CEN standards that are jokes as well. But climbers give them far more importance than they deserve. That Aliens don't always meet this test shouldn't be a concern, at all. The quality control issue is another matter but the UIAA test doesn't really get at that.
I agree with you on all counts, with the caveat that CCH appears to rate their gear quite optimistically, which makes their ratings even less useful than those of other manufacturers. And while I agree that the UIAA test isn't perfect, its the only standardized test we have at the moment and until someone comes along with a better one we're kind of stuck with it. And since this is the test that's used by everyone else it only makes sense to hold Aliens to the same test criteria when doing comparisons between brands. If Aliens don't do as well in this test then they either need to get the standard test changed or redo their ratings to match how they actually perform. It's a lot like all those "best in class" car commercials you see... Of course the one they're advertising is the best, since they rigged the "class" to only include ones that perform worse than the one they're selling. And in the case of Aliens they don't hold up in the test used by everyone else so they went ahead and created their own test but haven't disclosed what it is so no one knows how the other cams would do in it...
Clyde wrote: Alas, I fear your dealings with CCH were doomed from the start because of your association with rc.com. IIRC they were lynched by the rc.com mob the first time before they even had a chance to see the defective cam. No wonder Waggoner was disdainful of this new round of testing that singled out his product. Would have been better for one of the mags or the AAC act as a go between but too late now.
Actually this isn't the case as I contacted CCH almost a week prior to making any of the results public and did not disclose my relationship with RC until well afterwards as it was not germane to the discussion as I'm merely a volunteer mod there and the testing was done by me personally and in no way, shape or form had anything to do with RC. Plus I made a point of making note of the other brands of gear I tested at the NRR when I first contacted CCH and passed those results as well to show that I was _not_ singling them out.
As for the mags or AAC I doubt any of them would have touched it with a 10 foot pole, but that discussion is purely academic at this point. |
FLAG |
By Scott McMahon
From Boulder, CO
Jun 30, 2009
| b2solo wrote: Greetings, It would be interesting (to me) to know "Aric Datesman" climbing background. I have friends that are not 'super hard' climbers but they are SAR types (they need bomber, heavy duty, fail safe gear). Right tool for the right job. Maybe I missed it but "Aric Datesman" posting his comments without any context or credentials is total bs (or maybe BS). I looked at the earliest posts and I see no credo, etc. Are you for real Aric (if that is your real name)
I see your point, but at the same time what are you looking for? Background check? Publications in a magazine climbing 5.14d? MBA at the School of Mines? Have you looked at the post on RC.com? I have plenty of engineer friends that wouldn't spend that much time testing and posting any equipment. AND he's done it in front of other climbers and shop owners. How many "core" climbers are living in relative obscurity, whose contributions are unknown to the general public?
It's always good to be leary of people / things, but what does Aric need to do to prove his "credentials" and sincerity? It's not a spray situation where he needs to prove he can climb 5.14 in order to contribute. His work seems to speak for itself IMHO.
Hell, even if Aric DOES has the biggest hard on for CCH, is he wrong? There equipment isn't living up to their specs. It's false advertising. If this was a washing machine or air conditioner people would be pissed off if the equipment failed.
Nobody has to like it, but it's sure as sh*t good to know... |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| Thanks Scott.
As for you, "b2solo", if that is your real name, which I somehow doubt, all I can say is cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
I've been nothing but open and honest about who I am and what my background and qualifications are. I've put all that info in numerous places on several climbing forums and it just happens that up to this point no one on MP has asked so I didn't bother to post it here (presumably because they all took the time to read the reports I posted on RC and/or the accompanying discussions on other sites).
Given your tone though, I'm afraid the only thing I have to tell you is that you'll find everything you're looking for by using the search function on any of the other sites I've participated in discussions of this on. |
FLAG |
By JacobD
From Flagstaff, AZ
Jun 30, 2009
| FUNGUY wrote: Not planning to take any big whippers?!?! Who does?
People projecting hard trad routes. (or even trad routes that are just hard for them) Personally I try to push my limits trad climbing, so sometimes as long as I know its safe, I am okay with taking whippers on my gear. Will I put an alien as one of these pieces now after Arics testing, no.
FUNGUY wrote: Something is better than nothing. Really?!?! No way. They are nothing.
Actually none of the tested Aliens broke at 0kn (nothing) they all broke at much higher forces and in reality would probably hold small falls, and definately hold takes in real world climbing situations. The problem is they are breaking at less than advertised. That does not mean they are nothing. Have you ever lead a route where you are high above your last gear pumping and nothing else will fit but an alien. I have and I was glad to have it. So yes, for me they are better than nothing. |
FLAG |
By Beached Nuts
From Bermuda bitches
Jun 30, 2009
| JacobD wrote: People projecting hard trad routes. (or even trad routes that are just hard for them) Personally I try to push my limits trad climbing, so sometimes as long as I know its safe, I am okay with taking whippers on my gear. Will I put an alien as one of these pieces now after Arics testing, no. Actually none of the tested Aliens broke at 0kn (nothing) they all broke at much higher forces and in reality would probably hold small falls, and definately hold takes in real world climbing situations. The problem is they are breaking at less than advertised. That does not mean they are nothing. Have you ever lead a route where you are high above your last gear pumping and nothing else will fit but an alien. I have and I was glad to have it. So yes, for me they are better than nothing.
In fact, they all held in excess of the amount of force a significant whipper would generate.
Don't factor 2 on single piece alien anchors and you're fine.
Don't listen to me though, I'm scared of pitchforks. |
FLAG |
By Aric Datesman
Jun 30, 2009
| Not to disagree with you Jacob, but the Red from the NRR failed at ~4.5kN due to a clear manufacturing defect and I think we can probably agree that 4.5kN is well within the realm of what's possible in a typical lead fall.
I've not yet had time to do testing of lead fall forces, but the numbers I've seen from others who've looked into it the upper end was ~8 - 9kN. This is ballpark where Blue and Black Aliens are rated (8.27kN for Black, 9.79 for Blue) and none of the 4 of those sizes I tested met their ratings (Black = Sample 7 @ 5.26kN and Sample 24 @ 4.52kN, Blue = Sample 22 @ 8.13kN and Sample 23 @ 6.83kN). Two Yellows were failed between 9 and 10kN, with Sample 3 @ 9.34kN and Sample 20 @ 9.91kN, but given that BD supposedly has never had a 10kN Stopper fail in the field due to the piece itself I'd probably put these failure forces at the extreme high end of what's possible in a lead fall. |
FLAG |
By Brian Scoggins
From Laramie, WY
Jun 30, 2009
| JacobD wrote: Speaking of being out of touch, almost all of the folks I used to climb with in Laramie have moved elsewhere. I'll be home for a few weeks in August, would you be interested in getting out to Vedauwoo for a few pitches?
You know, I might. But I'll readily admit, I haven't been climbing much this summer, so I'm climbing at about the same level as the last time you and I met up, years ago. Send me a message when the time gets closer. |
FLAG |
|
[ Forums > Climbing Gear Discussion ]
RSS Feed
