My distributor in the UK, http://www.apexdistribution.co.uk says that he sent a bunch of them to the TUV labs and had them pull tested. He told me that they all tested fine, and that CCH has radically changed their QA/QC procedures...

As far as I'm concerned, anyone still purchasing these cams is either uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot.

Hysterical, a little? If you don't trust them, don't buy them. But don't call me and everyone else who swears by Alien cams "uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot". They are, hands down, the best designed cams in the world.

The source of CCH's problems is not their QA/QC process (or in their design). It is the fact that they make their cams by hand, and that they clearly had an incompetent operator at some point. But if they corrected that situation, and then validated their process, then there is no need to pull test any of their products.

I work with medical products that will almost certain kill you if they are not manufactured correctly. Do we do 100% QC? Hell no. We focus on controlling the manufacturing process and especially those critical operations within it. Training, calibration, maintenance, etc. is the way to build quality into one's products, and that is what the CE-mark is all about. CCH is pursuing that CE-mark, and for anyone who is well-informed, that is all they need to know in order to have confidence in their products.

The source of CCH's problems is not their QA/QC process (or in their design). It is the fact that they make their cams by hand, and that they clearly had an incompetent operator at some point. But if they corrected that situation, and then validated their process, then there is no need to pull test any of their products.

The source of CCH's problems is not their QA/QC process (or in their design). It is the fact that they make their cams by hand, and that they clearly had an incompetent operator at some point. But if they corrected that situation, and then validated their process, then there is no need to pull test any of their products.

I work with medical products that will almost certain kill you if they are not manufactured correctly. Do we do 100% QC? Hell no. We focus on controlling the manufacturing process and especially those critical operations within it. Training, calibration, maintenance, etc. is the way to build quality into one's products, and that is what the CE-mark is all about. CCH is pursuing that CE-mark, and for anyone who is well-informed, that is all they need to know in order to have confidence in their products.

At the heart of the matter is consistency and the fact that there have been a number of well-documented post-recall, post-new-QA/QC failures is simply a staggering indictment of CCH's inability to execute any QA/QC protocol faithfully.

Well, you are obviously not well informed. I work in QC for a company that has CE approval. We test a very significant percentage of our product for each lot produced. When there is a problem with the process (some steps are manually performed) then we catch it. "There is no need to pull test any of their products." Wow are you ignorant to be speaking like an expert on the subject. Any manufacturing process can have something go wrong, be it malfunction or an operator error. Thus QC testing.

BD is 3 sigma and still pull tests batches (at least they describe with biners) every biner to 1/2 rated strength.. and a few per batch to failure.

You are putting a lot of faith on the IF CCH can pull this shit off. They have not done a very good job lately of inspiring that much confidence.

I'm as big a fan of aliens as anyone. No other cam ever made works as well as aliens. However, if you have post recall "tensile tested" cams failing, you have a problem. The recent failures prove that CCH's process has not been "validated".

As far as I'm concerned, anyone still purchasing these cams is either uninformed, ill-informed, or an idiot.

I have heard talk of non-dimpled failures. Has there been reports of "tensile tested" cams failing?

I was not aware of any. If so, that would certainly raise the red flag even higher.

I have heard talk of non-dimpled failures. Has there been reports of "tensile tested" cams failing?

I was not aware of any. If so, that would certainly raise the red flag even higher.

Just the other day I was inspecting my gear ( OK I was bored and had nothing better to do with my time ) and after looking at my Aliens I have discover a little problem with my Yellow ones ( I have to of them ) The problem is that one Yellow Alien has a proper range of Yellow Alien, like it should. Second Yellow Alien has a range of Grey Alien.
Difference between Yellow and Grey size range is not that much so it is just a minor inconvenience ( got to get some grey electrical tape )

Here are some picks for you people.

The height of good lobe on yellow alien ( 0.508" )

The length of good lobe on yellow alien ( 0.709" )

The height of lobe on grey alien ( 0.553" )

The length of lobe on grey alien ( 0.774" )

The height of lobe on "bad" yellow alien ( 0.553 )

The length of lobe on "bad yellow alien ( 0.773" )

Range of yellow alien ( 0.698" ) (notice the yellow sling )

Range of grey alien ( 0.760" ) (notice the grey sling )

Range of "bad" yellow alien ( 0.761" ) (notice the yellow sling )


So, here is a little heads up for some of you that are getting into Aliens or buying more Aliens.

I'd be willing to bet that they never find faulty 'biners. Pull testing every 'biner is a marketing ploy that works really well ... worth their investment, I'd say.

If they are reasonably priced then CCH is doomed. people are just waiting for alternatives.

If there was a third party who could perform QC (e.g. pull testing), would you take advantage of this service, even if it cost you a few bucks? And would you then buy Aliens again?

Why are you so hell bent on Aliens? Seems that you need justification from the climbing community to continue to climb on and/or purchase new Alien cams.

I just don't want to see the backlash against CCH put them out of business, especially if they are able to get their act together...

....the root cause of each of the failures is a bad braze. Fixing that process (i.e. "pulling this shit off") shouldn't be difficult

.

Maybe you think it "should" be easy to fix this issue, but you are not making this gear shimanilami...

Hmm. perhaps we are basing our responses on a false assumption.

Maybe?

It seems we all basically agree that the design of CCH Aliens is sound.

Yes. Here's the list I was keeping, but I don't think it's complete:


In another thread, I compiled a list of Alien failures documented here and on supertopo (from a quick search and memory). I'm reposting it here for those who've not been following the whole messy saga from the begining. For those of you counting, that brings the number of documented failures/faulty cams to 11 (by my count... please someone correct me if my info is wrong or incomplete). I don't want to be alarmist, but I believe this is important information for those who are not aware of the previous failures/production mistakes.

The list:

Again, If the threads I linked here aren't the best sources, or my descriptions are innacurate, somebody please post up a correction.

Two Tensile tested Aliens fail 1100 and 1200 lbs (at the braze)
http://www.supertopo.com/...id=379659&tn=220

The "tensile tested" failure is one guy (who sounds like he has his own ax to grind with CCH), was able to pull a cam apart at what he claims was 1100 lbs. Which, without cofirmation/replication by some other independent testers, it is hard to have too much faith in the accuracy of this report and whether or not this cam really would have failed under the loads that actual falls generate.

They are, hands down, the best designed cams in the world.

Yes, I would say that is another red flag.

However, the cams that failed in lead falls concern me much more. In those cases, whatever sort of forces are actually generated by lead falls was enough to cause the cam to pull apart.

The "tensile tested" failure is one guy (who sounds like he has his own ax to grind with CCH), was able to pull a cam apart at what he claims was 1100 lbs. Which, without cofirmation/replication by some other independent testers, it is hard to have too much faith in the accuracy of this report and whether or not this cam really would have failed under the loads that actual falls generate...

I am a big proponent of LEAN and Six Sigma practices. No offense to QC, but it is my goal to eliminate the need for having you guys around. (You're overhead, frankly.) And with a manufacturing process as simple as the one at CCH, it shouldn't be too hard to do.

IYHO?

Did you learn your QC methodology off the back of a cereal box!?! Gee, our process works today, and we're "certified" so lets not monitor it anymore since nothing unforseen could change and cause us to start making a defective product I've heard some stupid things out of the mouths of sick sigma devotees, but this takes the cake.

I pray I never need the medical device you produce

no, not really. there is obviously an issue with the brazing process such that it cannot be performed by a trained monkey, therefore should not be attempted by an assembler in Chighna. Or Wyoming.

find another way to attach the cable to the head which CAN be performed by a trained monkey and you might have a new patent, but I doubt THAT's gonna happen.

I hope you never need any of my company's products, either. But the odds are such that you probably will. (In fact, the odds are such that someone you know already has.)

When I said it is my goal to eliminate the need for having QC around, I meant exactly what I said. From a business perspective, that money is much better spent on positions that grow the top line (e.g. R&D) or improve the bottom line (e.g. automation in manufacturing).

That said, it is virtually impossible to eliminate QC entirely, especially in an industry such as mine. But trust me, we're trying.

I seems to me that it is people with attitudes like yours that make the FDA necessary.

Jay

The "tensile tested" failure is one guy (who sounds like he has his own ax to grind with CCH), was able to pull a cam apart at what he claims was 1100 lbs. Which, without cofirmation/replication by some other independent testers, it is hard to have too much faith in the accuracy of this report and whether or not this cam really would have failed under the loads that actual falls generate.

The above is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.... even on the internet.

I have been in contact with the "tensile tested" failure guy. He has no axe to grind and has a background in materials testing. His testing set up is top notch and his results are verifiable and accurate.

As for the loads that climbing falls generate and whether the tested/failed cam would have held such falls..... use your bean man! The cam failed at 1100 lbs. I have had Alien failures from 150lbs to 900lbs. What sort of fall does it take to generate a 150lb load? 900lb? 1100lbs? It ain't much, and to suggest that a cam is good in the real world when these lab style failures are occurring is just idiotic. Look at the math a bit more and then wise up a bunch. CCH cams are a potential timebomb, and someone will die eventually if this failure rate continues.

What is so dumb about my statement? If I said that I tested an Alien and it failed at 90lbs would you automatically believe me? Of course not. I'm just some dumb dude on the internet spouting off.

If CCH farmed out production to an outside party - BD or Metolius, for example - would this eliminate your quality concerns? Would you buy "made by BD/Metolius" Aliens?

CCH knowingly and willfully violated the trust of the climbing community. If you're on this forum, that means your community. When we as a community are uneccesarily endangered, then lied too about it, it goes beyond business, and gets personal. I'm not a vindictive person by nature, but I hope they are put out of business fast. Karma, baby. It can be a real bitch.

And this from a formally ardent aliens fan...

In a couple more days, we'll see what Metolius has up its sleeves, and maybe then all of this will be moot. Let's hope it's not another C3-like disappointment.

"Aliens by Metolius, but with machined cam stops" would be bad-ass.

And will that suffice, assuming there is not a design flaw at issue?

I would have to doubt a design flaw to be the heart of this issue. Perhaps the design could and should be updated a tad, because as I understand it the patent is about to expire, which generally means the patent is almost 20 (or is that 25) years old. A significant upgrade to the patent could extend protection another 20 years perhaps, IDK, as I'm not a patent lawyer or even anything close.

Now let's suppose CCH's testing procedure is not entirely trustworthy. What to do next?

question,

so i looked at the pictures of the two tensile tested cams that failed at 1.1k and 1.2k. What kind of torque does that method or rigging the head with webbing produce? It seems abit sketch to me to weight it from one side of the head. In the picture of the cam being stressed you can see an uneven line of force as the cam head is bent at an angle.

Does this test seem like a valid one? I noticed on the pull testing picutres that cch posted, the used a metal mount that evenly weights the head of the cam.

Any thought that the method of attachment might have caused premature failure in the above mentioned cams?

May 31 2007
The UIAA standard for testing frictional anchors(cams) is EN12276. All certification labs test cams to these standards. Testing an Alien by threading a cord under the cams and then applying force is not a valid test and it doesn't simulate use of the cam in a placement. In use, the cable eye can pivot in the direction of the force and also allow the cable stem to take the flex over its entire length With a cord under the cams and around the cable eye, the eye is twisted so that all the bending force is located at just one point: the base of the cable eye. This places undue stress at one point and can cause premature breakage, similar to placing the stem over an edge.

yes I would believe you.