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

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

can't Imagin not firing in a screw asap! A major part of my game is that providing there is at least 7.5cm of ice I can get a scew in any time, any place.. 

That is semi impossible when you start climbing more difficult ice. People who do need a risk tolerance that allows you to goi into ‘I’m pretty much soloing here, I can’t trust a single screw for 50-100feet.’ Not a good place to have a tool failure. :) Glad August survived that scenario. 

I’d be more curious to understand how one can break an ice tool and not whip. The way I imagine it possible, to break the tool, is your weight is fully on the tool that breaks while you are reaching up/swinging with the other. Like it shouldn’t break in half while you are semi loading it, right? Maybe he whipped on his tether? But then I bet ice is good enough to bail from (if you can whip on your tether). So that’s probably not what happened there.

SirTobyThe3rd Mwrote:

That is semi impossible when you start climbing more difficult ice. People who do need a risk tolerance that allows you to goi into ‘I’m pretty much soloing here, I can’t trust a single screw for 50-100feet.’ Not a good place to have a tool failure. :) Glad August survived that scenario. 

Indeed.

I’d be more curious to understand how one can break an ice tool and not whip. The way I imagine it possible, to break the tool, is your weight is fully on the tool that breaks while you are reaching up/swinging with the other. Like it shouldn’t break in half while you are semi loading it, right? Maybe he whipped on his tether? But then I bet ice is good enough to bail from (if you can whip on your tether). So that’s probably not what happened there.

I’d imagine most of these (ice climbing) failures are occurring a result of greater impact forces when swinging as opposed to the comparatively minimal force from hanging on the pommel.

sir toby, I asssume that you are talking ice harder than 5+? because on 5+ if the ice was not full of air I could get one in pretty much any time  anywhere. thats one of the things that makes you capable of leading that grade. now I am old and injury ridden. Only led one pitch of 5 last winter and my shoulder was toasty afterwards. 

Christian Donkeywrote:

I’d imagine most of these (ice climbing) failures are occurring a result of greater impact forces when swinging as opposed to the comparatively minimal force from hanging on the pommel.

At the risk of engaging in the type of idle speculation that I've railed against in this thread, I tend to agree.  Not only are there quantitative force differences, but I think more importantly, vector differences.  We've probably all, as kids, broken sticks by whacking them against a tree or something (or is that just me?), but fewer among us will have torn sticks apart with a straight pull.  I realize wood is not aluminum, but I think similar principles are at play (bending forces vs tension forces).  However, I'm no engineer or physicist.

Grant Watsonwrote:

 ….I realize wood is not aluminum, but I think similar principles are at play (bending forces vs tension forces).  However, I'm no engineer or physicist.

Do we even know for sure what the exact suspect material (and specs) in question is?

I tried to get Caroline’s failed axe set from her, but I believe Petzl outbid me.  

Mark Pilatewrote:

Do we even know for sure what the exact suspect material (and specs) in question is?

I tried to get Caroline’s failed axe set from her, but I believe Petzl outbid me.  

No, we don't know (at least I don't).  Again, idle speculation.

If Petzl is recovering broken tools, let's hope it's for R&D/investigation and not just a "catch and kill" approach.  I suspect they'd want answers no less than we do, and are probably best-positioned to quickly identify any major issues.

> No, we don't know (at least I don't).  Again, idle speculation.

I think we know more or less what the nomics are made of, no?

Outside to inside: rubber, 1mm of plastic, 1.5mm of aluminium (probably 6061), 3.5mm of plastic, 6mm laser cut aluminum plate (not sure what grade but not 7xxx).

JJwrote:

I think we know more or less what the nomics are made of, no?

Outside to inside: rubber, 1mm of plastic, 1.5mm of aluminium (probably 6061), 3.5mm of plastic, 6mm laser cut aluminum plate (not sure what grade but not 7xxx).

Hey JJ, if you're gonna bomb in on page 13 of this thread with a brand new pic of a brand new break, which seems to have occurred in a different place than all the others depicted, it would sure be nice to have some details!  Was this your tool?  Your pic?  What can you tell us of the circumstances of the break?

As for the comments about the material, I certainly don't dispute that it looks - and seems to behave - like some kind of AL, but that leaves me short of being able to say I know that it's AL. Forgive me; I'm trained in my profession to check all assumptions along the way to any conclusion because failure to do so can lead to very embarrassing consequences.

> What can you tell us of the circumstances of the break?
It's my tool, I broke it to see what's inside. 

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a petzl secret alloy with properties unlike anything we've ever seen. 

EDIT: I'm happy to send a piece of it for spectral analysis if someone here is willing to pay for performing it

Interesting though.  Looks like you pulled it apart. (Y axis)  Different failure mode and location than the others.  

If you still have the sister tool, try some transverse flexing.   Lock the hand grip in place and flex in the x-axis  (maybe some Z) from the pick tip/head and see how long to induce failure 

Can you cut away all the remaining plastic and rubber and just get down to the laser cut core?  Do it on the sister axe and have one complete core blank.  

The photo is from pulling the handle in Z axis. In Y axis the head block breaks the alu pipe it sits in first. The handle is very strong in Y axis actually. 

Karl Henizewrote:

Kyle, I disagree that ice tools should be allowed to have catastrophic failure modes that have no warning.  These are not disposable, single use products.  

I think your average climber should be able to perform a die penetrant inspection, with guidance from a manufacturer.  This is far preferable to having tools be completely uninspectable.  It is common practice to place the expected point of initial fatigue failure at a location that is easy to inspect and then provide an inspection procedure to the user/operator.  

If you have a better suggestion, I am all ears, but the current status quo of having absolutely no safety regulation of fatigue failures on ice tools or crampons is far from ideal.  

PT (Dye Penetrant) testing is only applicable for unpainted surface level indications. It requires you purchasing 3 cans of products (around $60-70) this likely would negate most cost savings and leaves a fair bit of user error in application and interp.

According to all governing NDT organizations worldwide. not one would tell you to have an inexperienced person perform a test and trust the results. At minimum you would required 16 hours of training and a few weeks of OJT. The manufacturer would also have to have a level 3 write a procedure and qualify all those performing the test (if you are following the Ndt world and expecting the results to protect you legally).

if you are worried about catastrophic failures it shouldn’t be at happening at a known location or else you should find a way to avoid the damage mechanism.

I'm going to make an analogy to older style bike rims, but bear with me...

Back in the day, most bike rims were extruded alumunum sections that were rolled into hoops.  The two ends of the hoops were joined by different means; welded, press fit with insert, etc.  The joints always made a small deformation or bumb that you could feel every revolution with rim brakes. This was somewhat improved by the company Mavic, that began to weld their rims together and then machine the braking surfaces flat.  When the wheel was tensioned after building, and you were braking, you could still feel the joint because of density and deformation, but it was slightly better.  

Anyway, that process of welding and then machining the outer surface was promoted as a big advance, but I also thought it was a cost saving strategy.  It allowd Mavic to produce rims with much less consistent sections and lower tolerances, still get a relatively good braking surface.  I worked for decades in bike shops, and we confirmed this by cutting apart some rims.  

I feel the same way about the plastic inserts that "solved" the head wobble on the oldder generation Petzl tools, as well as all the plastic that we see inside this handle.  

Sure, the plastic allows for some thermal expansion/contraction, but it also takes up a lot space that could be eliminated by more precise machining and higher tolerances.  

If these the head-to-shaft and handle-to-shaft interfaces had better machining, with more surface area contact, I think these problems could have been avoided. 

But Petzl, like all companies, has to constantly balance cost, weight, longevity, and so on.

My 2 cents $

JJwrote:

> What can you tell us of the circumstances of the break?
It's my tool, I broke it to see what's inside. 

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a petzl secret alloy with properties unlike anything we've ever seen. 

EDIT: I'm happy to send a piece of it for spectral analysis if someone here is willing to pay for performing it

Can you post more pictures and details of how you broke it? Like what did the brew setup look like? How much force and where was it applied? Where and how was the shaft braced?

JJwrote:

…Outside to inside: rubber, 1mm of plastic, 1.5mm of aluminium (probably 6061), 3.5mm of plastic, 6mm laser cut aluminum plate (not sure what grade but not 7xxx).

just curious if you (or anyone) knows for sure whether this was laser cut or water jet?   I can’t definitively tell from the striations in the pic.  

I’m going to go out on a limb and wildly speculate that this is a combination problem of the design and manufacturing process.  From what I can tell from all the pics and looking at my own Nomics and Ergo’s is that the main field failure point (blue line in pic below) is the junction where the Aluminum core is unsupported by the plastic and aluminum tubing outer sheath layers.  

This added weight above that point, seems like it could really stress that junction via repeated swinging and hammering in the x-axis, and if there was laser cutting induced damage (heat damaged “micro cracks” along a striation due to process speed and temp variations — it’s really not all that surprising where and how the failures are occurring.  

Compare with JJ’s failure points due to Z-axis loading (red lines) that are 90 degrees to any potential cutting process induced surface weaknesses….his just failed at the overall mechanical weak point

> Can you post more pictures and details of how you broke it? Like what did the brew setup look like? How much force and where was it applied? Where and how was the shaft braced?

Yes, I'll publish all results once I'm done with all the tools I'm tesitng. 

Is this a good time or bad time to mention that I am selling a single Nomic?

Christian Donkeywrote:

Is this a good time or bad time to mention that I am selling a single Nomic?

It might pair well with the single Trango Kestrel (carbon/kevlar tool) I have to sell.  It's one of the few tools without an aluminum core in the shaft.

Gunkiemikewrote:

It might pair well with the single Trango Kestrel (carbon/kevlar tool) I have to sell.  It's one of the few tools without an aluminum core in the shaft.

Fun fact for those who don’t know, those are actually made by Elite Climb.

Yup, this thread is just a Polish conspiracy.

Christian Donkeywrote:

Fun fact for those who don’t know, those are actually made by Elite Climb.

Yup, this thread is just a Polish conspiracy.

Quite correct. And - to circle back to this thread - AFAIK not a single one of the EC tools has ever broken.