|
|
|
|
tradgal
Jan 6, 2006, 7:58 PM
Post #176 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 384
|
In reply to: In reply to: It seems as though this man is never going to make anyone happy. What is this? A witch-hunt? We can complain until the cows come home about this was handled, but it's all water under the bridge. Let's all just try to stick to the main concern--safety!!! And, we will know more as soon as the piece in question is tested and as soon as mgear gets their test results from random batch samples. Not everyone is complaining. Some of us are just watching the show, seeing how it will end. However, the ending is not always the most important thing. How you get there is also very relevant. - Seyil
Possibly I should have said "Everyone" instead of "anyone." But I tried to make it a point to call myself out and not include everyone by writing "people." instead.
That beside the point...Everyone makes mistakes, and as demonstrated, CCH has as well. But every time CCH makes a step in the right direction, ei: responding, offering to pay for testing, calling insaino back even though CCH didn't email (and may have never seen email) some people still aren't happy. You can't change the way things have been handled thus far. My point: to stop complaining about how things have been handled up until this point, and wait for the results of testing.
Afterall, this is all about safety, not a witchhunt for a partiular brand or company.
Edited to add: This isn't a witchhunt against Insaino either (though I have questioned him, as well as others).
|
|
|
|
|
wings
Jan 6, 2006, 8:17 PM
Post #177 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 283
|
In reply to: You can't change the way things have been handled thus far.
You also can't expect people to forget the way things have been handled thus far.
In reply to: Did you ever hear the philosophy that once a man admits he's wrong, he's immediately forgiven for all wrong-doings?
In reply to: Man, get outta my face with that shit! The motherfucker who said that never had to pick up itty-bitty pieces of skull with his fingers on account of your dumb ass.
- Seyil
Edited to add - I don't want people labelling me as "pro-CCH" or "con-CCH". Like I said, I'm waiting to see how this all turns out. However, the actions of the past will not be wiped clean at the end of all this. I'm glad CCH seems to be taking a step in the right direction. They have a lot of damage control to do, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jan 6, 2006, 8:25 PM
Post #178 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Dave, thanks for a solid step in the right direction.
In reply to: Here's my observation of something that's kind of been lost in the shuffle: the civilized way insainio handled himself. He was called a troll, accused of manufacturing a hoax and assumed to have ulterior motives, but he never got emotional and talked s--- about CCH or anyone else. He told us what happened, backed it up with numerous pictures, answered all questions anyone posed to him and made reasonable attempts from the start to communicate with the manufacturer. Congratulations on your cool head, Kevin. If I could rate posts, I'd give one or more of yours a trophy. JL
Absolutely agreed.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 6, 2006, 8:59 PM
Post #180 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
There are always risks involved with mechanical devices used in climbing . Each manufacture after making such a protections and or devices leaves a percentage for comebacks, defect, etc. If a manufacture says that their products are 100% bullet proof, they lie. We all know that. So few % is normal, the only questions remains is this that; which item out of these unknown percentage is going to be in your system.
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Jan 6, 2006, 9:01 PM
Post #181 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
Trophy.
In reply to: In reply to: anyways, this is silly. even the idea that one should bounce test their cams before using them is utterly and completely ludicrous. I happen to disagree. In fact, if nothing else comes of this, I'm happy that my complacency has been pointed out to me. When it comes down to it, it's *my* life on the line. Lawsuits don't mean s---. Money won't make being a paraplegic a whole lot more fun. GO |
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 6, 2006, 9:23 PM
Post #182 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: There are always risks involved with mechanical devices used in climbing, especially. Each manufacture after making such a protections and or devices leaves a percentage for comebacks, defect, etc. If a manufacture says that their products are 100% bullet proof, they lie. We all know that. So few % is normal, the only questions remains is this that; which item out of these unknown percentage is going to be in your system.
A "few %" is certainly not normal and the only questions that count are how you prevent bad product from getting not only out the door but from one manufacturing step to the next and how you should react if some do. Fortunately both are actually well understood in today's manufacturing and QA circles...
Look up "Six Sigma"...
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Jan 6, 2006, 9:23 PM
Post #183 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
I think this sums it up beautifully,
In reply to: any brand for which this (bounce testing) starts to seem like a good idea is doing something seriously wrong.
I am taking a flight out of London tomorrow morning with United Airlines. Will I be performing my own pre flight walk around checks or asking to see the flight log to make sure all the critical snags from the last flight have been repaired and signed off? Absolutely not. I have faith in the checks that are already in place in the industry.
The idea of random people who have absolutely no idea what they're looking for, inspecting brazed joints for their structural integrity or attempting to perform a static pull test on their new cams of a few kN to make sure they are safe is completely ludicrous. Petzl manages to individually test a lot of their products like biners, ascenders etc. The burden of quality assurance definitely should not have to fall on the consumer. From an engineering perspective this is complete lunacy!
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Jan 6, 2006, 9:35 PM
Post #184 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: Look up "Six Sigma"...
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (and maybe even if I'm right), but I think with 3-sigma you expect to ship a few defective units per thousand, while with 6-sigma you expect to ship a few defective units per million.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jan 6, 2006, 9:41 PM
Post #185 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: Look up "Six Sigma"... The most stringent climbing gear QA claim I've seen is BD who used to claim 3-sigma on their website. Don't know if they still have 3-sigma QA but I didn't see any mention of it lately. While that's seems pretty good for gear manufacturers (and BD seems to have shipped high quality gear for a long time), you can still expect to see defective units. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (and maybe if I'm right), but I think with 3-sigma you expect to ship a few defects per thousand, while with 6-sigma you expect to ship a few defects per million.
Six Sigma being the operating rubric, see http://gpsinformation.net/main/errors.htm for an example of 3 sigma...
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 6, 2006, 9:48 PM
Post #186 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
I believe three sigma refers to three standard deviations from the mean, meaning that in a normal distribution, any failures would occur less than one percent of the time.
My statistics is a bit rough, but I think thats the gist of it.
Best conceptualized viewing a graph with a bell curve normal distribution, and sigma markings
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 6, 2006, 9:52 PM
Post #187 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
oh, by the way a standard deviation (or sigma) means the amount by which any given number in a set is likely to deviate from the mean (average).
In a normal distribution (natural, or typical), something like 65 percent of the population would fall within one sigma, 95 within two, and 99 within three
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Jan 6, 2006, 10:12 PM
Post #188 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: In reply to: Look up "Six Sigma"... The most stringent climbing gear QA claim I've seen is BD who used to claim 3-sigma on their website. Don't know if they still have 3-sigma QA but I didn't see any mention of it lately. While that's seems pretty good for gear manufacturers (and BD seems to have shipped high quality gear for a long time), you can still expect to see defective units. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (and maybe even if I'm right), but I think with 3-sigma you expect to ship a few defective units per thousand, while with 6-sigma you expect to ship a few defective units per million.
Sorta...
BD uses "3 sigma" to set the rating for their gear. In other words, when they make a batch of carabiners, they test to failure a number of them, and then they use those numbers to calculate "3 sigma", ie, three standard deviations from the mean of the testing. Then they rate the biners based on the mean minus "3 sigma". Then, as an added check, they proof test to half of that rated strength.
So, you might expect less than 2 out of a 1000 to be outside the lower 3 sigma rated strength. And, for a "tight" sigma, that might not be a significant amount.
Their 3 sigma explanation is still on their website (I posted it below).
6 sigma, in industry, is typically just 3 sigma on either side of the bell curve. So, a lot of times, when folks are talking "3 sigma" and "6 sigma", they're kinda saying the same thing. They may look at any data points outside 2 or 3 sigma to try to understand the variation in a process, for example. And that's usually assumed to be 2 or 3 sigma on each side of the bell curve of data.
"6 sigma" is also kind of an industry buzz phrase for the method of looking at process variation. Process capability and such.
Brian in SLC
From BDEL:
THREE SIGMA RATING SYSTEM
Make it a point to know as much as possible about your equipment. The strength ratings on climbing gear are there to give you clear and conservative information, but the meanings of ratings given by different companies can vary depending on how manufacturers interpret their data. To rate our climbing gear with a meticulous degree of accuracy, Black Diamond uses a rigorous rating standard called Three Sigma. Here's how Three Sigma works.
Example: Carabiner Ratings
Engineers test a random sample of carabiners under international standards using a machine called a tensile tester, which literally stretches the carabiners until they break. They determine the average, or mean, breaking strength of the batch. From this data they also calculate the average deviation from the mean, called the "standard deviation," symbolized by the Greek letter sigma. The standard deviation represents the variation of breaking strengths within a given group of samples. If the biners are rated three standard deviations less than the average breaking strength, 99.87% of the biners will be stronger than the rating.
So let's say we break 20 biners with an average strength of 6000 lb, and with a standard deviation of 100 lb. The Three Sigma rating would be 6000 - (3 x 100), or 5700 lb. The Three Sigma standard tells us that only 2 in a batch of 1000 biners might not meet the 5700 lb rating.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 6, 2006, 10:12 PM
Post #189 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (and maybe even if I'm right), but I think with 3-sigma you expect to ship a few defective units per thousand, while with 6-sigma you expect to ship a few defective units per million.
"Defective" is the wrong word to use, IMO. If the mean strength is say 10 kN and 1 SD (ie, 1 sigma) is 1 kN, then using a 3-sigma policy for assiging strenght ratings, the piece would be rated "7 kN", and you would expect 0.13% of units not meet the rated strength. I put "7 kN" in quotations for a reason: it's just an arbitrary rating. The piece will likely be stronger, but there is a 0.13% chance that it won't be. But that's all 3- or 6-sigma really is: an arbitrary policy for assigning a rating, in this case, for strength. Units that don't meet the rating aren't necessarily defective; they're just the ones in the left tail of the curve. Of course, there could be real defectives, too.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Jan 6, 2006, 10:22 PM
Post #190 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: "Defective" is the wrong word to use, IMO. If the mean strength is say 10 kN and 1 SD (ie, 1 sigma) is 1 kN, then using a 3-sigma policy for assiging strenght ratings, the piece would be rated "7 kN", and you would expect 0.13% of units not meet the rated strength. I put "7 kN" in quotations for a reason: it's just an arbitrary rating. The piece will likely be stronger, but there is a 0.13% chance that it won't be. But that's all 3- or 6-sigma really is: an arbitrary policy for assigning a rating, in this case, for strength. Units that don't meet the rating aren't necessarily defective; they're just the ones in the left tail of the curve. Of course, there could be real defectives, too.
Exactly. Inherent process variation. Expected.
As well, BD is smart to proof test their gear to ensure they don't have any gross defects. Carabiner example from their site posted below.
Brian in SLC
Example:
CARABINER MANUFACTURING & TESTING
Confidence in your carabiners means confidence in your climbing. The last thing you should be thinking about when nearing the crux is whether or not your last clip was bomber or not. To earn your trust in our gear we go to great lengths to produce only the strongest, highest-quality biners possible. All Black Diamond carabiners start as 7075 aluminum alloy, which is delivered in stacks of 12-foot rods. To make our carabiner bodies, we then cut the 7075 stock to length, bend it, cold forge it and stamp the gate ends and gate notches in a two step process that allows us to hold close tolerances. Biner bodies are then heat treated in our state of the art heat-treating ovens to give them the right blend of toughness and strength. The gate material, also heat-treated, is cut, drilled and milled to shape on an automatic gate machine. Both parts are then tumbled and polished to the smoothest sheen. The carabiners are assembled on the assembly line and each one is run through our custom engineered Carabiner Testing Machine (CTM) which tests the gate action, pulls the biner to ½ its rated strength, performs a photo-imaging comparison analysis and stamps a date code. Several carabiners from each batch manufactured are then tested to destruction to allow a statistical analysis to be performed, ensuring that the biners made are meeting the required strength ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Jan 6, 2006, 10:23 PM
Post #191 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: "Defective" is the wrong word to use, IMO. If the mean strength is say 10 kN and 1 SD (ie, 1 sigma) is 1 kN... |
|
|
|
|
wings
Jan 6, 2006, 10:59 PM
Post #192 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 283
|
In reply to: The carabiners are assembled on the assembly line and each one is run through our custom engineered Carabiner Testing Machine (CTM) which tests the gate action, pulls the biner to ½ its rated strength, performs a photo-imaging comparison analysis and stamps a date code. Several carabiners from each batch manufactured are then tested to destruction to allow a statistical analysis to be performed, ensuring that the biners made are meeting the required strength ratings.
This makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
- Seyil
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Jan 6, 2006, 11:53 PM
Post #193 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
In reply to: Mgear makes a great statement about their standpoint, and people complain about the number of cams they offered to test.
In reply to: And, we will know more as soon as the piece in question is tested and as soon as mgear gets their test results from random batch samples.
I don't think anyone is complaining that MGear is going to test some cams. Bad brazes made by competent people should be rare. While it is possible that they will test a bad one, it is far more likely that the cams they test will not be defective.
Most likely nothing will be proved or disproved by testing such a small number.
|
|
|
|
|
antiqued
Jan 7, 2006, 12:46 AM
Post #194 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243
|
Healyje
While I can't have really read and studied all of the postings, I agree that the reported cam lobe drilling problems are very, very troubling. This new issue is troubling also - and unlike the Feb post, the OP produces pictures, responds reasonably and repeatedly, and I hope my post didn't impugn his reputation.
But the crowd here obviously spends all of its day on the computer - my job is that way also, but I bet that Dave and his people do not - they spend their time drilling, grinding, packing ...not browsing.
The questions posed here are mostly good and should be answered, but I see a crowd frenzy which feeds on itself, then will probably peak and wash away, in a time scale that can't match the "real world".
I need to go sharpen some picks to remain eligible to contribute here.
|
|
|
|
|
insainio
Jan 7, 2006, 4:24 AM
Post #195 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 46
|
Hey everyone,
I wanted to let you in on another interesting little factoid that I learned today. The e-mail address listed on cch's website is old and no longer in use.
Their new e-mail address is: cchaliens@aol.com
Thought you might want to know.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
cruzinsouthoc
Jan 7, 2006, 7:56 AM
Post #196 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2001
Posts: 84
|
I actually took time to read many of the posts on this thread and am anxiously awaiting the results of CCH's testing. I'm interested to see what they find since I also have CCH's on my rack.
I noticed some recent posts about 3sigma ratings on BD's gear..honestly, being a structural engineer, that is why I started buying BD gear years ago when I got into climbing. I like to get the warm and fuzzies and 3sigma versus "average failure" loads give me the warm & fuzzies.
What I really wanted to find out is whether or not (I may have missed it in the thread) how CCH rates their gear and what quality control standards they use for manufacturing their gear was mentioned anywhere. Do they test each of their cams (or even a percentage of them) before they leave their shop?
I would never accuse any manufacturer, especially one that had such a loyal following as CCH, to have poor manufacturing, but good quality control and testing minimize the number of faulty products that leave the manufacturing line. The truth is there will be some bad products that leave the line, but efforts need to be in place to minimize the number.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 7, 2006, 8:20 AM
Post #197 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
A "few %" is certainly not normal and the only questions that count are how you prevent bad product from getting not only out the door but from one manufacturing step to the next and how you should react if some do. Fortunately both are actually well understood in today's manufacturing and QA circles...
Look up "Six Sigma"...
I agree with your comment. My background is in Aircraft repairs and I worked on Airplanes and in both Mfg and QA. In many cases especially the engine parts. We used to send the aluminum parts for an x-ray because some of the hair line cracks and defects cannot be detected thru human eyes. Welding, soldering, cutting and making many climbing gears has its own problems and again there should be zero tolerances for defect in climbing and safety equipments but is this truly happening? Anyway, I like to know from a mfg representative that how many thousands of gear they sell every year and how many defects they get back.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
ronolsen
Jan 7, 2006, 9:12 AM
Post #198 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2003
Posts: 47
|
In reply to: I wanted to let you in on another interesting little factoid that I learned today. The e-mail address listed on cch's website is old and no longer in use. Their new e-mail address is: cchaliens@aol.com
...which explains why people haven't been getting responses to email queries.
Having a bad email address in the "Contact CCH" section of their website isn't the smartest way to run a business. I wonder if the "Send Message" form on http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/contact.html has been fixed to use the new email address?
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Jan 7, 2006, 2:37 PM
Post #199 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Nope, just checked the HTML. Same old address. Might be a good idea if they took the 5 minutes to fix something pretty simple that would certainly help their customer relations.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 7, 2006, 2:49 PM
Post #200 of 246
(40719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
That would explain the 'never got the email...'
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
