Petzl Ice Tool Failures (Current Generation Quark, Nomic, and Ergonomic)

Li Huwrote:

3 Sigma is 99,7%

These are complete failures, and I would expect the number to be closer to 6 Sigma?

2,5 million people ice climbed last year.

6 failures is close to 6 Sigma.

Still, would not want to be one in 400k.

Would you want to be that one person driving along a highway then have the wheels inexplicably fall off the axles?

Just looked at climbing statistics, surprised that 10,5 million people climbed last year? 25 Million golfed last year (one time minimum). Climbing is overtaking golf. Sort of cool!

If 2.5 million people climbed ice last year, we need to do something to deter people from this sport. These tools are making it too easy.

Maybe it’s not such a bad thing that nomics are breaking after all…

Bruno Schullwrote:

I climbed on Nomics for decades, then switched to X-Dreams, then went back to Nomics.

Like you, I was suspicious of the X-Dream handle, but I found it rock solid.  Don't be so quick to dismiss those bolts--they work much better than I assumed.  And many high stress parts are held in place that way accross a variety of industries.  

I really like the X-Dream handle--in my view it has the best pommel/pinky rest in the industry (not the spike version, the regular version).  I also realy like the swing and the overall feel, although I do think it's a bit flexy for dry tooling. 

There were two reason I switched back to Nomics and Ergonomics.  

First, I think the swing is better with the newest generation of Petzl tools.  As said ice climbing grandmaster Sean Isaac, "Everybody swings better with a Nomic."  

Second, I like the ergonomics (dare I say) of the upper portion of the grip.  Because the rear portion of this area has a smooth curve (unlike the abrupt curve on the X-dream) you can get a really nice swing from your forefinger.  Now, before the howls of protest begin, yes, I am aware of swinging from the lower grip and pinky.  I probably alternate back and forth between the two about 2/3 pink and 1/3 forefinger.  As the ice climbing guides say here in Switzerland, swinging from the pinky gives you more "Zug" or force (litterally translated as train, somewhat like the Swiss equivalent of calling something "truck."   I find with the forefinger swing you can get a little more finesse.  It's nice to be flexible, and it's nice when the tool accomodates different styles smoothly and easily.  A friend of mine pointed out this difference between Nomics and X-Dreams, and once I felt it I couldn't unfeel it.  

All that to say, X-Dreams are great tools, but I think Nomics handle a little bit better.

The new Petzl tools look like they have a very nice grip, much like the Nomic.  The weight and balance will be a big factor in how they swing.  

As for all the speciality tools, Elite, and so on, I think that if there was even a fraction of the number of some of those tools on the market we would see a high number of failures.  And for pure ice climbing, I don't think you need tools with extended grips and similar details.  

The new DMM tools look promising in terms of durability (like most things DMM) but with their history I don't know how the tools will feel and swing.

I agree with you about carbon tools. I’ve enjoyed laughing about how one of the strongest anti-Petzl voices in this thread is also the biggest voice for pure carbon tools.

It’s almost as though people are being willfully ignorant of the history of carbon composites in ice climbing and other high impact areas of use…

And screen grabs from a chat with a climber sponsored by the company making carbon tools isn’t going to make facts change. That’s similar to me saying “I was just texting with Jeff Mercier and he said he’s never broken a Petzl tool.”

NateCwrote:

It’s almost as though people are being willfully ignorant of the history of carbon composites in ice climbing and other high impact areas of use…

I would love if you could elaborate. I are you arguing for or against carbon in ice tools?

Finn Lanverswrote:

I would love if you could elaborate. I are you arguing for or against carbon in ice tools?

I’m not arguing for or against.

I’m stating that the idea of carbon ice tools being the savior from other options is a false narrativeCarbon tools have broken, and continue to break, from every manufacturer who has made them. Elite Climb tools will be no different if they gain enough market share, and I’m fairly certain I recall pics of a broken Salamandra  

Your dark machines have their own history of breakage. Particularly when used for drytooling. 

Li Huwrote:

2,5 million people ice climbed last year.

Globally? Where is this data coming from?

NateCwrote:

I agree with you about carbon tools. I’ve enjoyed laughing about how one of the strongest anti-Petzl voices in this thread is also the biggest voice for pure carbon tools.

It’s almost as though people are being willfully ignorant of the history of carbon composites in ice climbing and other high impact areas of use…

And screen grabs from a chat with a climber sponsored by the company making carbon tools isn’t going to make facts change. That’s similar to me saying “I was just texting with Jeff Mercier and he said he’s never broken a Petzl tool.”

Lol

1. I fully acknowledged that elite climb tools have previously broken on the last thread. Feel free to read everything I wrote about it on the last thread and that should give you some insight towards my actual position, not the false one you’re inferring.

2. Morphos are not pure Carbon. They are made with a composite of carbon fibres, vectran and graphene. They are undoubtedly stronger than any previous carbon tool on the market. While carbon has its shortcomings, it’s in its design and application that enables its successes. As you say, its “history in high impact areas of use” I believe often times comes from its reputation in the biking world, where its regularly expected to withstand forces that exceed its limits, but I think we’re now derailing into what could be a whole other topic of discussion. I’m not claiming Morphos are necessarily the right tool for everyone, however, that has nothing to do with the fact that I think Nomics (and X Dreams) suck, and that I believe Morphos are likely stronger in most scenarios and don’t have the same design flaws.

3. And that is the designer of the tool, not a sponsored climber. Very different.

Christian Donkeywrote:

Nomics and X-Dreams both suck because they are prone to breaking. 

Ok hang on here. Where are the X dream failures? I keep a pretty close eye and I cant reference any failures, and yes I am sure there are some out there but I have seen no trends of consistency like the ones being discussed in this thread. 

If you don't like them personally that is fine, but I am purely asking for failure examples here. The one posted from the Cilo IG here earlier was confirmed as a UL mod. 

Pat Marrinanwrote:

Ok hang on here. Where are the X dream failures? I keep a pretty close eye and I cant reference any failures, and yes I am sure there are some out there but I have seen no trends of consistency like the ones being discussed in this thread. 

If you don't like them personally that is fine, but I am purely asking for failure examples here. The one posted from the Cilo IG here earlier was confirmed as a UL mod. 

I believe there are previous threads on MP discussing broken X-Dream handles.

Somewhere the Forecast Equipment guys uploaded a video of them (intentionally) breaking X-Dream handles without too much effort. I also have friends who have broken their handles simply ice climbing, presumably from smacking against ice bulges, which is an avoidable problem in my opinion, however, I still believe a tool should be able to withstand such forces.

Camp probably could analyze the sales data of the replacement X-Dream handles that they sell (or warranty out) since these generally would only get purchased by users who have experienced broken handles. Unless you're arbitrarily switching between the "Alpine" version with the spike and the one without. But still... I'll make it a point to ask my local gear shop how many they think they sell and what those customers are saying next time I go there. I'd imagine it's not too dissimilar from the crappy toe bails on Darts that keep breaking as well.

The upper lip of the x dream handle (where your pinky would be resting in second position) can crack, but it is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect performance at all. Correct that it happens from bashing an ice bulge. Mine have been cracked for years, they gave me a new handle the first time and then I realized it doesn't matter. 

So differences here- 

Non critical failure - sure it's a bummer but you won't fall from it. 

Easily inspectable and replaceable, if you do care. 

Prompt warranty for the issue. 

If we are going down this rabbit hole I think we should be distinguishing cosmetic from critical failures. That is why this nomic thing is scary after all, if it happens at the wrong time, YMD. 

Christian Donkeywrote:

I believe there are previous threads on MP discussing broken X-Dream handles.

Somewhere the Forecast Equipment guys uploaded a video of them (intentionally) breaking X-Dream handles without too much effort. I also have friends who have broken their handles simply ice climbing, presumably from smacking against ice bulges, which is an avoidable problem in my opinion, however, I still believe a tool should be able to withstand such forces.

Camp probably could analyze the sales data of the replacement X-Dream handles that they sell (or warranty out) since these generally would only get purchased by users who have experienced broken handles. Unless you're arbitrarily switching between the "Alpine" version with the spike and the one without. But still... I'll make it a point to ask my local gear shop how many they think they sell and what those customers are saying next time I go there. I'd imagine it's not too dissimilar from the crappy toe bails on Darts that keep breaking as well.

Christian, you seriously need to dial it down a few notches. 

Forecast Equipment actually make handles for the X-Dreams to make the longer, there by increasing the torque.

The handle are not breaking like the few Nomics on the first page. The plastic is cracking, they aren't snapping off. Stop eluding that they are breaking in the same manner as the Nomics.

rocknice2wrote:

Christian, you seriously need to dial it down a few notches. 

Forecast Equipment actually make handles for the X-Dreams to make the longer, there by increasing the torque.

The handle are not breaking like the few Nomics on the first page. The plastic is cracking, they aren't snapping off. Stop eluding that they are breaking in the same manner as the Nomics.

I refuse to dial down on the front that both Nomics and X-Dreams just aren't good enough.

Are you suggesting that the Forecast handles exert too much torque on the rest of the X-Dream? That is possibly true, but not the point I was making about Forecast. Just that they made a video demonstrating the lack of durability of stock X-Dream handles.

There is a difference in the types failures between the two tools, I didn't mean to suggest that it's exactly the same problem. They aren't snapping off, but they still break with relative ease.

Everyone's so quick to defend what are now the two most overrated tools on the market, why not demand something better?

Christian Donkeywrote:

I refuse to dial down 

Pat Marrinanwrote:

And how is making a pommel out of fucking plastic just cosmetic? If it cracks without you realizing, and you fully rest your weight on it (that's what pommels are for, after all) then that sounds like a critical failure to me as well.

WHAM .wrote:

Globally? Where is this data coming from?

I believe so, and was also shocked to read that? Just “googled”.

With that, 6 Sigma isn’t a design issue. Unless, Petzl published those numbers   

Christian Donkeywrote:

Lol

1. I fully acknowledged that elite climb tools have previously broken on the last thread. Feel free to read everything I wrote about it on the last thread and that should give you some insight towards my actual position, not the false one you’re inferring.

2. Morphos are not pure Carbon. They are made with a composite of carbon fibres, vectran and graphene. They are undoubtedly stronger than any previous carbon tool on the market. While carbon has its shortcomings, it’s in its design and application that enables its successes. As you say, its “history in high impact areas of use” I believe often times comes from its reputation in the biking world, where its regularly expected to withstand forces that exceed its limits, but I think we’re now derailing into what could be a whole other topic of discussion. I’m not claiming Morphos are necessarily the right tool for everyone, however, that has nothing to do with the fact that I think Nomics (and X Dreams) suck, and that I believe Morphos are likely stronger in most scenarios and don’t have the same design flaws.

3. And that is the designer of the tool, not a sponsored climber. Very different.

Hahahaha. Oh he’s the designer! My bad, he’s definitely not biased in that case. Hahahaha

I’m not talking about cycling. There’s a huge history of carbon fiber and composite constructions failing. Skis, ski poles, tennis rackets, hockey sticks (which are often made with vectran, graphene, etc).

It’s ok to be a fanboy, but not at the expense of using hysterics to do so. 

Statistics. If out of 1 million ballistic shields we randomly select 10000 and find 6 got pierced resulting in death - are the sheilds good or bad? Probably depends on how many were shot at ...

5000 beginners in Ouray climbed 1 route each putting 90% of weight on their crampons and no tool (that had no accumulated fatigue) broke ...  says nothing about how reliable the tool is.

I've seen more than 6 broken nomics myself and I know one person who broke or bent at least a dozen of BD tools and another person who broke at least 7 xdreams. How many people who climb 3 WI3 routes a year didn't break their nomics is immaterial to me. It seems weird to me to dismiss the problem as marginal.

Material strength. As we've seen in a plot earlier in this thread - aluminum will always break if it's used for long enough. Connections of parts, especially made of different materials is very hard to model. Most tool failures we've seen happen exactly there. With a notable exception of early nomics that broke in the middle where the leash hole was placed - that seems extremely easy to prevent. If you insist on using multi-part aluminum tools and you climb a lot you should probably replace them quite often (once a season, recommended by BD, doesn't seem like an exaggeration). 

"Eliteclimb tools would break all the time if people were using them". I'm not sure I buy it (see point 1 about statistics). I know 4 climbers that had previously broken other tools (in one case 3 anchars in another case 2 nomics) and they haven't broken morphos. How many people climb on a given tool is obviously a factor, but morphos aren't tested on a random sample of nomic users, but primarily on people who climb hard and who climb a lot - their rate of breaking nomics would be close to 100%, not 0.03%. 

"This guy is sponsored by The Big Carbon Corporation". The big carbon corporation isn't actually making any money for me, if anything I'm trying to show climbers that tools don't have to be shitty. Hopefully the actual big corporations will realize a piece of aluminum of production cost of $20 doesn't cut it as climbers demand higher quality from them.

Carbon tools also fail. That is true and we haven't run comparative loading and unloading handles for hundreds of thousands of cycles, so there's no hard data on the tool fatigue. Fatigue of carbon fiber parts has been researched though and looks more like steel than aluminum:

There are also reasons to believe previous carbon tool failures (since it doesn't seem to be common knowledge here I'm not going to point out which tool I'm referring to) were more of an implementation problem than a limitation of the material itself. The way they fail was never similar to nomics/xdreams but had more to do with that 1/ all fibers were laid in the same direction 2/ stiffness of the highest stress area was supposed to be guaranteed by an extra steel part, but in practice it only worked in one plane. 

A known limitation of carbon is lack of strength in the direction perpendicular to the fibers. This is especially a large problem when you torque a tool in a sharp crack. For that aluminum tools, or ideally titanium seem like a better option. 

Personal opinion on aluminum. I personally believe aluminum is a horrible material for ice tools with price being the only factor that makes it popular. 

JJwrote:

Personal opinion on aluminum. I personally believe aluminum is a horrible material for ice tools with price being the only factor that makes it popular. 

I think it’s chosen for weight? Aluminium isn’t like steel, it breaks suddenly.

I’d feel better if they used a steel skeleton within the tool. It may add weight, but seems worth it?

Strength to weight ratio is similar, but still even 7075 is not as strong per gram as titanium or good quality steel:

Carbon Steel 1700MPa at 7.85g/cm3

Titanium 1200Mpa at 4.5g/cm3

7075 Aluminum 570Mpa at 2.8g/cm3

6061 Aluminum 290Mpa at 2.7g/cm3

Jj i think youre mostly right. But id point out two things-

1. “Strong” is not very useful on its own if youre talking about materials. Obviously this is a discussion beyond the capabilities of this thread, and steel, aluminum, and carbon fiber have vastly different properties. Some 101 definitions for those interested https://www.accu.co.uk/p/111-strength-rigidity-hardness-difference#:~:text=Strength%20is%20a%20measure%20of,amounts%20of%20energy%20without%20breaking.

2. Considering the number of hard climbers using nomics i have some trouble intuitively grasping this to be anywhere near correct

> their rate of breaking nomics would be close to 100%, not 0.03%

1. I 100% agree it doesn't describe all important properties
2. Looks like you and I have very different observations on this. Firstly, where are they? There's only one worldcup climber I've seen still using stock nomics - Nathan. I haven't talked to him about how long his nomics last. Secondly, a lot of my friends who choose to use nomics for outdoor climbing replace them often either through sponsorship or by buying and returning them at REI or MEC. I'm actually really surprised by this thread claiming it's a minor problem that affects 6 people out of 2 million given that I know multiple climbers who have broken 6+ aluminum tools each. Janez even broke a nomic during worldcup finals several years ago, after which he switched to carbon grivel force.