What's up with CCH?
|
|
mattm wrote: There are still 4 lobes and 4 springs like any other cam. Most cams use 2 springs. 1 for each opposing set of cam lobes. |
|
|
mattm wrote:@Adatesman - They may have changed the design but on my aliens, I only count 7 swages. Thumb Loop, 2 for the trigger tube (copper bands) and 4 for the trigger wires. No interest in getting into a pissing match with you over this, but it all depends on what size and generation Alien you're looking at. Some of the smaller ones used sewing needles (literally... former employee of theirs confirmed it to me) as trigger wires, which eliminated 4 of the swages (heads were below the trigger bar and threaded through the lobes and then bent upon assembly). Others had balls soldered onto stranded cable that passed through the lobes and had a ball soldered/swaged on the other side, others balls swaged onto cable at the top bar that was swaged to solid wire that went through the lobes and yet others had a combination of things. |
|
|
JLP wrote: The rule of thumb for a non-commodity product is 25% of retail for the manf cost, so that would be a $300+ cam - at least for a company like BD that wants to make money. Not quite following the $300 cam thing. I was looking at it from the manufacturing side as 33-50% markup to retail, resulting in a retail price of $100+. |
|
|
Aric Datesman wrote: Long story short, I've done a cost analysis on this and came up with something north of $100 retail. If you have different results I'd love to see them. IMO the only way CCH made a go of it was because they were essentially a garage operation with limited overhead, demand exceeding supply (and the resulting price premium) and employees willing to work for peanuts. Were this not the case, someone else would have picked it up by now. This is the gist of it, from everything I've heard talking with different gear manufacturers. All of us who were lucky enough to get "golden age" Aliens were actually the beneficiaries of what was essentially a more individualistic, craftsman-era, pre-industrial revolution production model, and one of the very last of its kind in the climbing industry. |
|
|
20 kN wrote: I have a community service announcement. It should be noted that "Aric Datesman" barely climbs 5.6 and has little to no real world climbing experience. A few months ago he spent days deleting 3,000+ posts off rockclimbing.com because his feelings were hurt and that was his way getting "back at everyone". When confronted with challenge and criticism he folds like a house of cards and high tails out of the situation. You should take note of this when reading his so called 'advice'. Nothing that Aric said was dependent on his ability to climb hard or not. Attack what he was saying, not his person. |
|
|
camhead wrote: And, USNavy/20kN, if you really want to get into rc.com, perhaps we could tell mountainproject what everyone over there thinks of you and your climbing abilities? I could dig up where you called The Shield a grade VII, for starters. My favorite was when he was giving big-wall advice before, you know, actually ever doing one. Good times... |
|
|
Aric Datesman wrote: No interest in getting into a pissing match with you over this, but it all depends on what size and generation Alien you're looking at. Some of the smaller ones used sewing needles (literally... former employee of theirs confirmed it to me) as trigger wires, which eliminated 4 of the swages (heads were below the trigger bar and threaded through the lobes and then bent upon assembly). Others had balls soldered onto stranded cable that passed through the lobes and had a ball soldered/swaged on the other side, others balls swaged onto cable at the top bar that was swaged to solid wire that went through the lobes and yet others had a combination of things. Not pissing, just pointing out that different generations have different specs, some which fall below what you were quoting. There ARE variations that have all the weird stuff you note. Below I included a picture of what I think is a very common design of the Alien (and what I have circa 2003) Aric Datesman wrote: Easy way to settle it is for you to assign a cost to your time (including business overhead for things like equipment, lighting and benefits) and sit down with all of the component parts and see how long it takes you to assemble one. You've got maybe $10 in materials plus 15 minutes of machine time for the parts that go through the CNC, which from what I'm told was a Mori Seiki lathe with live tooling for the lobes, head and trigger terminations and I'm assuming a small vertical mill for the trigger bars. Probably at least $400k in CNC equipment there (if not more... Mori's are rather nice machines and priced accordingly; I used to work for one of their distributors. And cost goes way up if you add on a bar feeder for the lathe in an attempt to bring the cycle times down), so figure monthly notes on that equipment plus overhead likely puts the shop rate at ~$60/hr. So 10 + 15 + assembly time * pay rate = ? Long story short, I've done a cost analysis on this and came up with something north of $100 retail. If you have different results I'd love to see them. IMO the only way CCH made a go of it was because they were essentially a garage operation with limited overhead, demand exceeding supply (and the resulting price premium) and employees willing to work for peanuts. Were this not the case, someone else would have picked it up by now. Last first, I think the reason other CAM companies haven't jumped in vary but are all pretty logical. Most already had a fairly NEW small cam design on the market. BD had their small cam offerings - C3s and the small C4s. Wild Country had theirs with Zeros. Both Metolius and DMM only had their TCUs. Metolius did join the game with Mastercams. DMM could have be busy (R&D and $$ wise) with the Dragons. The other thing you have working here is time to tool up and produce a better Alien. As someone above pointed out, it took DMM years to re-tool for the Offsets. You're gonna want to make them better etc etc so there's some R&D there for sure. That's assuming you're free and clear on patent issues. #1-Head Termination) C3s have (2), Aliens have one. The C3s aren't soldered like the alien. While the soldering is more labor intensive (and the MAJOR issue with Aliens) a NEW Alien could use the C3 method easily. So 2 swages on the C3 vs 1 on the "New Alien" |
|
|
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Matt. I'm fine with that. |
|
|
Aric Datesman wrote:Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Matt. I'm fine with that. And FWIW, my analysis of other cam designs has them falling round about where they are in the marketplace. Heck, even my designs work out to ~$50 retail and that's with buying materials in small quantities at retail pricing and pricing my time at $30/hr (admittedly overhead is artificially low in that calculation, as I've long since written off the cost of the machinery). Speaking of my designs, I'm actually supposed to be down working on them at the moment so I'm wandering off. -aric. This is what I'm looking for Aric. Give me your cost breakdowns of the other cams on the market. Show me your methodology for pricing out an Alien vs other cams. |
|
|
mattm wrote: This is what I'm looking for Aric. Give me your cost breakdowns of the other cams on the market. Show me your methodology for pricing out an Alien vs other cams. Break Down a Link Cam for me. Break Down a BD C3 for me. Break Down a Dragon Cam. I want to see how something that has no hot forging, fairly simple lobes, simple sling, no molded plastic parts (costly machine), no advantages of large scale production, etc etc prices out FAR above the other things on the market. Heh. I seem to recall asking you for your numbers for Aliens first. :-P :-) |
|
|
John Wilder wrote: uh, no. thats the reason the wires for the trigger are oriented that way, but the reason they dont have a tube design (as they did on the prototypes) is because Doug (the owner) deemed the tube not strong enough so they went with the wires instead. I dont buy that either. |
|
|
Aric, still not getting to the root of my issue. |
|
|
Matt, as I said before I don't care to argue this. You asked for my cost breakdown for a regular cam and for an Alien, which I provided. You, on the other hand, have yet to provide any numbers showing how your analysis falls out or how my analysis is faulty. So if you don't mind, I'm going move onto other things until you actually provide us something to discuss. |
|
|
Aric Datesman wrote:Matt, as I said before I don't care to argue this. You asked for my cost breakdown for a regular cam and for an Alien, which I provided. You, on the other hand, have yet to provide any numbers showing how your analysis falls out or how my analysis is faulty. So if you don't mind, I'm going move onto other things until you actually provide us something to discuss. And by the way, Link Cams DO cost $100. mountaingear.com/pages/prod… That's fine, we've been down this path before... |
|
|
mattm wrote: That's fine, we've been down this path before... That we have. mattm wrote: Up thread I specifically asked you to break down 3 cams that I view as more complicated yet cost less than your theoretical Alien MSRP. And if you scroll way back to page 1 of the thread you said: mattm wrote:I have serious doubts about the assembly cost claims. Aliens are no more complicated than a C3 and probably less so. and: mattm wrote:All of this can be done for $70 MSRP in my mind. Again, look at the C3 original MSRP. A well made, improved Alien that performed as well as or better than the original would sell like gang busters at $70. To which I replied: Aric Datesman wrote:My analysis of it puts it around the $100 mark or so, assuming you pay a living wage. If you have a cost analysis that shows different I'd love to see it. And remember, this was WAY BEFORE you asked me to break down the costs for a C3, LinkCam, etc. Feel free to argue your later point all you like; I'll be waiting here for an answer to the question I posed to you before any of that came about. I've made my case in support of my contention based upon an actual manufacturing cost analysis and it's yours to accept, refute or ignore. |
|
|
mattm wrote: That's fine, we've been down this path before... Up thread I specifically asked you to break down 3 cams that I view as more complicated yet cost less than your theoretical Alien MSRP. You said you have and I've yet to see anything other than a RE cam discussed(one that I did not mention at all) From your earlier post: mattm wrote: This is what I'm looking for Aric. Give me your cost breakdowns of the other cams on the market. Show me your methodology for pricing out an Alien vs other cams. Break Down a Link Cam for me. Break Down a BD C3 for me. Break Down a Dragon Cam. This is what I'm looking for Aric. Give me your cost breakdowns of the other cams on the market. Show me your methodology for pricing out an Alien vs other cams. Break Down a Link Cam for me. Break Down a BD C3 for me. Break Down a Dragon Cam. I want to see how something that has no hot forging, fairly simple lobes, simple sling, no molded plastic parts (costly machine) no anodization etc etc supposedly prices out FAR above the other things on the market. You asked for a cost breakdown of Aliens and another cam on the market. I chose RE Durangos and Aliens because I had already done an analysis on them (the Durango to set a baseline for comparison to the designs I'm working on and Aliens because I was curious if the numbers I was told were correct). I have no interest in do an analysis on Link Cams, C3s or Dragons and will not be doing them. You're more than welcome to, if you like. But long story short, my analysis of the Durango fell right in line with where it is retail and the same methodology applied to Aliens falls right in line with the analysis done by a gear company that looked into buying CCH a while back and ultimately took a pass on it. Take it or leave it, it's up to you. |
|
|
Aric Datesman wrote: And on a side note, you simply can't do a cost comparison based upon perceived complexity, especially if you have no clue about the cost of the manufacturing processes involved. That, my friend, will get you a /facepalm/. I've asked again and again to be enlightened regarding manufacturing processes and their costs. |
|
|
JLP wrote:Aric - there is only one person in the room who doesn't get it. Please stop replying to them. Thanks. Then you break it down for me and help me get it. |
|
|
Sounds like a good plan, JLP. |
|
|
Aric Datesman wrote:If you really want an analysis done for the C3 and LinkCam simply follow through what I outlined and plug in the appropriate numbers. He doesn't need to plug the numbers. He perceives what he feels. He's the Decider. He has faith that he is right. Don't trouble him with your "analysis," and your so-called "facts," Mister Numbers Cruncher! |





