|
veganboyjosh
Jan 5, 2006, 6:22 PM
Post #76 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: to protect CCH and allow for further investigation.
he mentioned no such investigating, which i think is what the uproar is about mostly.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Jan 5, 2006, 6:23 PM
Post #77 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
In reply to: In reply to: Speaking of reading comprehension, as I pointed out, he did contact CCH. What part are you not comprehending? At issue is the difference between calling and emailing CCH. Happiegrrrl seems to think that calling is more direct and immediate than email; her query was specifically whether insaine _called_ CCH, and specifically not whether he contacted them by other means. Adopting a snarky 'tude about it contributes nothing to this exchange.
Sigh, aren't you the kee-nigget in shining armor? Read the following:
In reply to: Actually, I did e-mail CCH before posting this. I e-mailed instead of called because 1. they were closed and 2. I had pictures which could better explain what happened than I could over the phone. I then wanted to post this to warn other climbers. And as of yet, they have not responded to my e-mail. Kevin
So, while it's all sweet and dandy to get on a high horse and determine how the OP in the original thread should post, read the fucking post in question. Because I highly doubt he needs a "virtual tap on the shoulder," no matter how condescending that may be.
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Jan 5, 2006, 6:24 PM
Post #78 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Let's go with the "McDonald's coffee scenario"( loosely). Blaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh, as only Halppigrrrl can do....." (Yes - I KNOW this is *not the same thing.*" If it's not the same thing, then why use it in your argument? ...cl I felt it was close enough to allow those with an intermediate level of reading comprehension skills to make a connection. That was why I wrote it. I realize not everyone has that competent abiltity, and apologize to anyone who "didn't get it."
So'K, how're you supposed to know that I'm well below the intermediate level? :D
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Jan 5, 2006, 6:31 PM
Post #79 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Shaky, I think that what we have hear is a miscommunication.....
YES, I am aware he emailed, and though I didn't cut and paste the quote, and yes, I am aware he emailed "because of...."
I am not on a high horse. More like trotting the lead pony up alongside the jockey on the racer, with a riding crop in hand and a suggestion of "Here, sir. You might want this."
My use of the phrase "virtual tap on the shoulder" was not meant to be condescending. Though I can see it has succeeded rather well in annoying you! Ahhh, the Laws of Unintentional Consequences....
Signed,
Miss Snarky
(and I promise I will stop now, as I understand I am not positively contributing to the thread by going in this direction. So, in hopes that I may at least walk away with the Miss Congeniality title - Shakey, you may have the last word, if you care to.)
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 5, 2006, 6:39 PM
Post #80 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: Shaky, I think that what we have hear is a miscommunication..... YES, I am aware he emailed, and though I didn't cut and paste the quote, and yes, I am aware he emailed "because of...." I am not on a high horse. More like trotting the lead pony up alongside the jockey on the racer, with a riding crop in hand and a suggestion of "Here, sir. You might want this." My use of the phrase "virtual tap on the shoulder" was not meant to be condescending. Though I can see it has succeeded rather well in annoying you! Ahhh, the Laws of Unintentional Consequences.... Signed, Miss Snarky (and I promise I will stop now, as I understand I am not positively contributing to the thread by going in this direction. So, in hopes that I may at least walk away with the Miss Congeniality title - Shakey, you may have the last word, if you care to.)
With the merits of phone communication vs. email aside, insano did contact CCH, and based on their response to that thread, they are aware of his attempt to communicate with them.
By this line of reasoning, there is no excuse for their failure to contact him.
Should he call too?
You bet, but it is his prerogative, not his responsibility.
The ball is in their court
|
|
|
|
|
mgear_pres
Jan 5, 2006, 6:41 PM
Post #81 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 5
|
I've followed this thread for a day and believe that as both a user of Aliens and as a reseller, Mountain Gear should weigh in.
Climbing Gear is "mission critical” and as such any concern about its safety should be taken seriously and resolved quickly. Take the past examples of BD, Metolius and other vendors putting out recalls for products where just a very small number of units were found to have flaws.
We believe a manufacturer should act proactively to ensure the quality of their product. It's certainly better to be safe now, than sorry later.
Though we do not believe the retailer should be responsible for a manufacturer’s quality control, there are instances where we believe it is in the best interest of climbing and our customers to be proactive.
To this end Mountain Gear has sent an orange alien from each batch that we have in stock (1105 and 1205), as well as another alien of each size from any batches we have, for testing. We should have pull test results back early the week of Jan 9th and I commit that we will post our findings here.
We do not have any cams stamped 805 but if you purchased an orange 805 stamped cam from Mountain Gear and would like us to exchange it we would be happy to do so.
Let's try to get this resolved so we can all go back to trusting and using some of our favorite gear.
Paul Fish
President
Mountain Gear, Inc
paulf@mgear.com
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 5, 2006, 6:41 PM
Post #82 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
by the way, nice analogies happiegrrrl :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mistertyler
Jan 5, 2006, 6:42 PM
Post #83 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2003
Posts: 197
|
Not that it matters or counts, but my vote is for Insainio to *call* CCH on the phone. A cursory look at their basic website and the fact that CCH's rc.com account only has 2 posts should make it entirely clear to everyone here that they couldn't give two sh!ts about the 1nterweb and would prefer to deal with this issue the traditional way.
Just because most of us are technologically savvy and use the Internet on a daily basis, it doesn't mean that everyone else is, does, or should. Also, as someone else pointed out somewhere in one of these threads, rc.com (and the internet in general) is *not* the place for them to be resolving this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Jan 5, 2006, 6:45 PM
Post #84 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
ok - so that's about all that can be said till insainio speaks with chh and reports back! whew i thought this would go on and on but alas it's over.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Jan 5, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #85 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: I've followed this thread for a day and believe that as both a user of Aliens and as a reseller, Mountain Gear should weigh in. Climbing Gear is "mission critical” and as such any concern about its safety should be taken seriously and resolved quickly. Take the past examples of BD, Metolius and other vendors putting out recalls for products where just a very small number of units were found to have flaws. We believe a manufacturer should act proactively to ensure the quality of their product. It's certainly better to be safe now, than sorry later. Though we do not believe the retailer should be responsible for a manufacturer’s quality control, there are instances where we believe it is in the best interest of climbing and our customers to be proactive. To this end Mountain Gear has sent an orange alien from each batch that we have in stock (1105 and 1205), as well as another alien of each size from any batches we have, for testing. We should have pull test results back early the week of Jan 9th and I commit that we will post our findings here. We do not have any cams stamped 805 but if you purchased an orange 805 stamped cam from Mountain Gear and would like us to exchange it we would be happy to do so. Let's try to get this resolved so we can all go back to trusting and using some of our favorite gear. Paul Fish President Mountain Gear, Inc paulf@mgear.com
Fully quoted, fully impressed!!!
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jan 5, 2006, 6:48 PM
Post #86 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Paul, thanks for stepping up and being proactive. I hope some of the other larger retailers will do the same.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jan 5, 2006, 6:51 PM
Post #87 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
OK -- we have two topics going that are covering similar issues. I'd like to keep both open for further commentary since they do have enough difference to merit more discussion.
**For this thread** -- please add you comment there if you have anything to say about how CCH is handling/responding to the situation.
**For the "Orange Alien" thread** -- please keep comments focued on the failure of the cam and the analysis of the failure.
With your help, I think we can keep these two topics seperate and have good discussion on both issues.
Thanks,
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 5, 2006, 6:53 PM
Post #88 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: Not that it matters or counts, but my vote is for Insainio to *call* CCH on the phone. A cursory look at their basic website and the fact that CCH's rc.com account only has 2 posts should make it entirely clear to everyone here that they couldn't give two sh!ts about the 1nterweb and would prefer to deal with this issue the traditional way.
A cursory look at their basic website provides their email address under the Contact CCH tab.
It is not insano's obligation to figure out how they prefer to resolve such issues.
Their preference is moot.
He is obligated only to establish contact with them, which he did.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 5, 2006, 6:53 PM
Post #89 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: We believe a manufacturer should act proactively to ensure the quality of their product. It's certainly better to be safe now, than sorry later. Though we do not believe the retailer should be responsible for a manufacturer’s quality control, there are instances where we believe it is in the best interest of climbing and our customers to be proactive.
Pity that the American Alpine Club does *nothing* to help ensure safe gear. It's shameful that there is no organization in the US that works to protect cliimbers.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 5, 2006, 6:55 PM
Post #90 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: To this end Mountain Gear has sent an orange alien from each batch that we have in stock (1105 and 1205), as well as another alien of each size from any batches we have, for testing. We should have pull test results back early the week of Jan 9th and I commit that we will post our findings here.
I'm not a quality assurance engineer, but it seems to me that if the results come back negative (ie, the pieces tested ok), that no conclusion about the batches can be made, because a sample size of 1 per batch would be insufficient to catch a manufacturing defect that affected only part of the batch.
Clearly, it isn't Mountain Gear's responsibility to canabalize its stock of Aliens for purposes of destructive desting; nevertheless, it seems to me that we have to be aware of the limitations of testing such a small sample size.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Jan 5, 2006, 6:55 PM
Post #91 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
In reply to: (and I promise I will stop now, as I understand I am not positively contributing to the thread by going in this direction. So, in hopes that I may at least walk away with the Miss Congeniality title - Shakey, you may have the last word, if you care to.)
My last word? That was a great, intelligent, and intelligible reply on your part.
No hard feelings?
|
|
|
|
|
chronicle
Jan 5, 2006, 6:57 PM
Post #92 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 664
|
Gold tropy to Paul Fish.
CCH should take lessons on how to represent themselves to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
tradgal
Jan 5, 2006, 6:59 PM
Post #93 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 384
|
RECAP:
In reply to: In reply to: to protect CCH and allow for further investigation. he mentioned no such investigating, which i think is what the uproar is about mostly.
In the CCH response "examination by a certified metallurgical lab on the device in question is necessary in order to prove or disprove the claims", I consider that a form of investigation. Though a concise plan of action has not been determined as of now.
Insaino--while you don't HAVE to call CCH, in terms of the safety of all Alien users and anyone following this thread, please call so that the safety of these devices can be determined as soon as possible.
MGEAR--Very well said!!! Thank you for being proactive in testing these cams. It's too bad you don't have any from the poorly drilled axle batch or the possible "exploding cam" batch which is currently in question.
Happie--Apparently not all analogies are lost on this topic :)
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Jan 5, 2006, 6:59 PM
Post #94 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
In reply to: Climbing Gear is "mission critical” and as such any concern about its safety should be taken seriously and resolved quickly.
In reply to: Take the past examples of BD, Metolius and other vendors putting out recalls for products where just a very small number of units were found to have flaws.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
csgambill
Jan 5, 2006, 7:22 PM
Post #95 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2004
Posts: 607
|
Repeat of my post from last night for any who haven't seen it but may have opinions:
Alright, from the perspective of a business owner CCH's response was not adequate relative to the severity of the issue. Many of us climbers, myself included, trust our lives with CCH's product. As we all know our gear is what physically separates us from life and death in a sport that is inherently dangerous. We want to know that we are purchasing a product that will eliminate as much of that inherent risk as possible. Basically, we want a product that will function as it is intended. Dave, you stated that the claims on this site leveled against your company are serious. You talk the talk, now walk the walk and show your customers that their lives matter to you. This situation has either the potential to be disastrous for your company, or if handled properly could result in an even greater windfall for you have already seen. CCH has many loyal customers who would stand fast through a manufacturing defect, so long as CCH displays the proper attitude and action. Your customers' concerns should be your concerns, and right now your customers have some serious concerns which you need to address to their satisfaction. I know that it is impossible to satisfy all the people all the time, but from the perspective of a fellow business owner I'll make a few suggestions in quelling the concerns of your customers with minimal financial hindrance to CCH.
Don't state that you believe this to be a hoax . It sounds far too much like you're trying to sweep the issue under the proverbial rug. I'm sure that if you have not already done so you are trying to identify if there is a problem to begin with, but you must let your customers know you're doing some internal auditing of your brazing procedures. I'm extremely good at my job, but even I make mistakes, your brazers are human and will also make an occasional mistake. If there is a problem figure out a solution that will improve the situation. The solution could be a very simple procedural change that barely effects anyone but results in massive improvements to your quality control. Finally, inform your consumers that you have investigated the problem and communicate the results of your findings with them.
I suggest that CCH offer to reimburse the owner of the cam in question for the cost of examination by a certified metallurgical lab. The lab should then post the results of their findings on the web in .pdf format on their letterhead. I can guarantee the cost of this examination will be far less than the revenue you stand to loose from mishandling the situation. If handled properly this situation could be a great marketing device, regardless of the results of the lab exam, in that it's a superb opportunity to let your customers know CCH is dedicated to making a quality product that will perform as intended.
Dave, you have a product that has, over the years, gained a very loyal base of supporters, but due to the speed at which information travels, via this site, word of mouth etc., you're running the risk of losing that base of support. You do have some strong competition. I hope for my own sake and the sake of other Alien users out there that CCH is producing a quality product. Regardless of whether or not this is a "hoax" you cannot treat it as such since the majority of people who know about this alleged defect do not believe it to be a hoax. If you mishandle this situation, this New Year may not be very happy for you.
-Chris
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Jan 5, 2006, 7:29 PM
Post #96 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
In reply to: In reply to: To this end Mountain Gear has sent an orange alien from each batch that we have in stock (1105 and 1205), as well as another alien of each size from any batches we have, for testing. We should have pull test results back early the week of Jan 9th and I commit that we will post our findings here. I'm not a quality assurance engineer, but it seems to me that if the results come back negative (ie, the pieces tested ok), that no conclusion about the batches can be made, because a sample size of 1 per batch would be insufficient to catch a manufacturing defect that affected only part of the batch. Clearly, it isn't Mountain Gear's responsibility to canabalize its stock of Aliens for purposes of destructive desting; nevertheless, it seems to me that we have to be aware of the limitations of testing such a small sample size. Jay
I would agree.
While it is admirable of MGear to do the testing it really won't prove or disprove anything unless they get really lucky and happen to pick the one bad cam out of 1000.
In house partial load testing by CCH seems like the only way to prevent another occurrence. I would think people would be willing to pay an extra dollar or two to know that the gear they are climbing on has passed a minimum safety test.
There are far to many things that could go wrong when making piece of gear that can't be visually inspected.
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Jan 5, 2006, 7:29 PM
Post #97 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: MGEAR--Very well said!!! Thank you for being proactive in testing these cams. It's too bad you don't have any from the poorly drilled axle batch or the possible "exploding cam" batch which is currently in question.
Many of the imporperly drilled orange Aliens seem to be from the same batch.
As for the "exploding cams", that's a different thing altogether. We have two reports of the main cable pulling out of the end cap in a fall, which is a catastrophic failure of the cam. These were with different sizes of Alien.
If these reports are correct, the failure mechanism is apparently a bad braze. We would expect that type of defect to have some random distribution. It's possible there was a bad batch here too, but we have no reason to think so. Even if there was a cluster of bad brazes, you would expect to find some elsewhere as well.
edited to improve the content
|
|
|
|
|
ctclimbz
Jan 5, 2006, 7:31 PM
Post #98 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 137
|
In reply to: We believe a manufacturer should act proactively to ensure the quality of their product. It's certainly better to be safe now, than sorry later. Though we do not believe the retailer should be responsible for a manufacturer’s quality control, there are instances where we believe it is in the best interest of climbing and our customers to be proactive. Let's try to get this resolved so we can all go back to trusting and using some of our favorite gear. Paul Fish President Mountain Gear, Inc paulf@mgear.com
Hear, hear. THIS is an example of a company that wants to keep customers instead of alien-ating them.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Jan 5, 2006, 7:35 PM
Post #99 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: The squeaky wheel gets the oil. And, the telephone is a hell of a lot squeakier than email. Insainio, if you could be more proactive by calling CCH, that would help out a lot! Thanks. Analogies seem to be wasted on this topic for whatever reason. Disappointing response from CCH, though I would guess it was fueled by not only Dave, but his attorney as well. I am sure he had to maintain some type of professionalism and obscurity in his response to protect CCH and allow for further investigation.
If his response was fueled by an attorney, he needs to retain new counsel. NO attorney is his/her right mind would "okay" CCH's response as it was made.
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Jan 5, 2006, 7:36 PM
Post #100 of 246
(40586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think I'ts been shown in the discussion on this site that the person making these accusations had an alterier(sp?) motive. Josh where - exactly - in this thread has it been shown that the original poster had any ulterior motives whatsoever? So far they have been completely forthright in attempting to present this problem and get it resolved. There is no basis whatsoever for your statement above...
Now that this has gone like 7 pages it may be too late to clarify my statement.
When I made it I had not seen the current thread about the current failure....i was refering to the previous thread from awhile back where the poster was a former(and short time) employee who did have ulterior motives....My mistake for not looking through every thread on the site.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
