|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 8:09 PM
Post #126 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
In reply to: Please correct me if I am wrong, if not don't make stuff up.
Sorry. "Lots" was an unintentional exaggeration. However, whether the failures were in the real-world or during testing during and after the recall shouldn't matter. The dimpled Aliens have manufacturing defects that make them not strong enough -- I think the climbing community should consider ourselves lucky that people were not seriously injured. Now, however, a non-dimpled Alien has failed.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 23, 2006, 8:17 PM
Post #127 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one that if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior. You have to be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding. Free-soloing at your limit is "incredibly risky behavior." Resting on a piece near the desk is trad-climbing. Indeed. We take lead falls with single pieces between us and the deck. Surely we can just rest on the piece. Jay Taking lead falls on single pieces at decking placements is in fact a risky behavior.
Agreed, but it is a reasonable risk, assuming you know how to place gear.
In reply to: Deliberately resting on them is equally risky.
In no way is it equally risky. Only a fool would take an intentional rest on a placement so bad it won't hold the force of him sagging onto the piece (about 3 times body weight, say 500 lb)
In reply to: The number of accidents occuring due to this behavior makes it clear this is not a risk-free behavior and doing it at at decking placement is all but asking for at least the possibility of trouble.
I don't know how many such accidents occur (and don't know how you could know), but such accidents don't mean that the practice is inherently risky; rather, the practioners are not competent at placing gear.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
phojar
Aug 23, 2006, 8:23 PM
Post #128 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: Sorry. "Lots" was an unintentional exaggeration.
Not a problem, just want to keep the issue clear.
In reply to: Now, however, a non-dimpled Alien has failed.
Allegedly failed, not trying to be a jerk here and I'm not saying the OP is a liar but it would be nice to see actual pictures of the suspect cam and it would certainly put to rest some of the debates that are ongoing.
I also find it odd that during the testing that went on before the last recall no tests showed non-dimpled aliens failed. If retailers pulled complete stocks and tested them it seems like if this really is a wide spread problem to all aliens manufactured during the time period that some non-dimpled ones would have failed during the tests. And if some non-dimpled aliens did fail during the tests then it would be very irresponsible for all parties involved in the testing if that information was not made public.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Aug 23, 2006, 8:29 PM
Post #129 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: NOBODY else is doing what CCH has done in terms of poor responsiveness and bad reputation.
Does anyone know for a fact that CCH has been contacted about this incident? Sure hard to have a response if they don't even know about it or are just going off this non-informational thread.
Back to our regularly scheduled lynching....
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 8:31 PM
Post #130 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
Some people posting here would have us think that those who have fallen as a result of Aliens failing are responsible (because they didn't back their piece up?!).
No. All these people did was trust the rated strength of the product (if they fell because of crappy placement or because they expected the piece to peform beyond it's limits, that would be different).
CCH is responsible for mislabeling their gear to lead us to believe that there is good quality control and that they will not fall apart.
However, I think that anyone who reads these threads had better take responsibility to back up/test/not use their Aliens. Anything else would be insane. Healyje, I think it is a risky behavior to rest on a single piece that keeps you from decking (I've done it but it freaks me out and I avoid it like the plague -- even on bolts), but it is not clear that his placement was suspect at all. What is clear is that the Alien fell apart under a load that it should have held. If the Alien didn't break, but it popped out of the rock, it would be fair to say this guy screwed up. But that was not the case. Frankly, if I was this guy I'd seriously considering suing.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 8:32 PM
Post #131 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
From the CCH website:
What are the strength ratings of my CCH Alien cams?
.33 -BLACK 1800lbs
3/8 -BLUE 2100lbs
1/2 -GREEN 2700lbs
3/4 -YELLOW 2700lbs
1.0 -RED 2700lbs
1.5 -ORANGE 3500lbs
Proposed edits:
What are the strength ratings of my CCH Alien cams?
.33 -BLACK: Don't trust them; use them if you have no other options
3/8 -BLUE: People have taken big falls on them and they've held, but don't trust them
1/2 -GREEN: No problems yet, but don't use ones with dimples
3/4 -YELLOW: No problems yet, but don't use ones with dimples
1.0 -RED: No problems yet, but don't use ones with dimples
1.5 -ORANGE: Dimples or not, sometimes these work and sometimes they fail under body weight
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Aug 23, 2006, 8:33 PM
Post #132 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
Healyje, I've been appreciative of the even-handed attitude you've had ever since the Alien cam failure issues first came to light. I say that so you'll understand that my question below is not from a position of disrepect.
In reply to: I'm not saying don't use this tactic or don't "take" - but I am saying be aware of the risks you are assuming when you apply this tactic to trad climbing. "Taking" or resting on any piece close to the deck - and especially one that if it pulls or fails will result in you decking - is an incredibly risky behavior. The talk in previous posts here about backing up such pieces were especially warranted in this case. If there is a significant possibility you will fall or have to rest on a piece whose failure for any reason will result in you decking then back it up. Period.
If taking/resting on a piece of gear is "incredibly risky," how much more risky would it be to take a fall on it? And if we don't have a fairly reasonable expectation that the piece will hold a fall, what's the point in using pro at all?
I agree that no one should take unnecessary risks or treat trad climbing the same as sport climbing. But the whole idea behind placing protection is to "protect" you in a fall (and by extension, the far less stressful activity of resting on the gear if you absolutely must). And as jt512 and others have said, if you can't depend on that, you might as well just avoid climbs where there's even a remote possibility of falling.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 8:35 PM
Post #133 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I also find it odd that during the testing that went on before the last recall no tests showed non-dimpled aliens failed. If retailers pulled complete stocks and tested them it seems like if this really is a wide spread problem to all aliens manufactured during the time period that some non-dimpled ones would have failed during the tests. And if some non-dimpled aliens did fail during the tests then it would be very irresponsible for all parties involved in the testing if that information was not made public.
A back-channel effort was made to have all Aliens pulled from shelves and returned to retailers tested - dimpled and non-dimpled alike - but that did not occur. Paul at Mountain Gear, on their own initiative to their credit, tested a small sample of cams and the results were such that they pulled them. No larger scale testing of non-dimpled Aliens was ever conducted by anyone to my knowledge despite numerous suggestions that retailers should have hired testing of all Aliens pulled from shelves or returned during the last flare up in this saga. This is again part of my concern that some of these large co-ops are now just big retailers long divorced from their roots. They once had the necessary staff, knowledge, and concern relative to an outdoor specialty like climbing to well serve that clientele, but I'd say those days are long since gone at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 8:52 PM
Post #134 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Healyje, I think it is a risky behavior to rest on a single piece that keeps you from decking (I've done it but it freaks me out and I avoid it like the plague -- even on bolts), but it is not clear that his placement was suspect at all. What is clear is that the Alien fell apart under a load that it should have held. If the Alien didn't break, but it popped out of the rock, it would be fair to say this guy screwed up. But that was not the case. Frankly, if I was this guy I'd seriously considering suing.
Josh, you of all people should understand the underlying issue of personal responsibility. If the bottom line is we are consumers first and climber second I'd agree with you - and maybe that's the way younger climbers now view things, as just another consumer issue. Most older climbers who remember making some gear, tying their own slings, and using the latest dubiously designed but well manufactured piece of gear probably have a different take on things.
I personally still believe you are ultimately responsible for everything that occurs when you leave the ground. Bad things can and do happen whether it is a sharp edge, rock fall, or bad gear. The point is, that when you fall or rest on single piece of gear at a decking placement you put your self at risk should anything bad occur. Bummer it was bad gear, but he'd still have taken the same ambulance ride if the rock or placement were bad or if the piece had shift as he climbed above.
I am in no way attempting to absolve CCH of their responsibility and complicity in this incident but am pointing out that the bottomline was that the decision to rest on a single piece at a decking placement opened the door for the possibility of something bad happening. Folks may disagree with me and say that a bolt or a piece of gear should not fail, and that it's someone else's fault if it does - but rock, gear, and bolts all do fail in the real world, and you should be prepared for that possibility when you leave the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
phojar
Aug 23, 2006, 8:53 PM
Post #135 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: This is again part of my concern that some of these large co-ops are now just big retailers long divorced from their roots. They once had the necessary staff, knowledge, and concern relative to an outdoor specialty like climbing to well serve that clientele, but I'd say those days are long since gone at this point.
I completely agree with this. When I returned my dimpled aliens to REI the guy working the climbing dept. told me they were going to sell off their stock of aliens and then stop stocking them. It struck me as strange b/c obviously they were not concerned with any potential safety issue since they were selling off the remaining stock of non-recalled without proper testing of the non-recalled cams. Not to highjack this thread any more than it already has been, but thanks for the info healyje.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 23, 2006, 8:54 PM
Post #136 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: In reply to: I also find it odd that during the testing that went on before the last recall no tests showed non-dimpled aliens failed. If retailers pulled complete stocks and tested them it seems like if this really is a wide spread problem to all aliens manufactured during the time period that some non-dimpled ones would have failed during the tests. And if some non-dimpled aliens did fail during the tests then it would be very irresponsible for all parties involved in the testing if that information was not made public. A back-channel effort was made to have all Aliens pulled from shelves and returned to retailers tested - dimpled and non-dimpled alike - but that did not occur. Paul at Mountain Gear, on their own initiative to their credit, tested a small sample of cams and the results were such that they pulled them. No larger scale testing of non-dimpled Aliens was ever conducted by anyone to my knowledge despite numerous suggestions that retailers should have hired testing of all Aliens pulled from shelves or returned during the last flare up in this saga. This is again part of my concern that some of these large co-ops are now just big retailers long divorced from their roots. They once had the necessary staff, knowledge, and concern relative to an outdoor specialty like climbing to well serve that clientele, but I'd say those days are long since gone at this point.
i'm confused. are you suggesting that REI didn't respond to part of a recall notice posted by CCH? or are you just saying that they should have broadened CCH's recall by doing pull testing on their own? if the answer is yes to either then my follow up question is: WTF?
i thought mgears testing was WAY above and beyond the responsibility a retailer should have to undertake.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 9:02 PM
Post #137 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I also find it odd that during the testing that went on before the last recall no tests showed non-dimpled aliens failed. If retailers pulled complete stocks and tested them it seems like if this really is a wide spread problem to all aliens manufactured during the time period that some non-dimpled ones would have failed during the tests. And if some non-dimpled aliens did fail during the tests then it would be very irresponsible for all parties involved in the testing if that information was not made public. A back-channel effort was made to have all Aliens pulled from shelves and returned to retailers tested - dimpled and non-dimpled alike - but that did not occur. Paul at Mountain Gear, on their own initiative to their credit, tested a small sample of cams and the results were such that they pulled them. No larger scale testing of non-dimpled Aliens was ever conducted by anyone to my knowledge despite numerous suggestions that retailers should have hired testing of all Aliens pulled from shelves or returned during the last flare up in this saga. This is again part of my concern that some of these large co-ops are now just big retailers long divorced from their roots. They once had the necessary staff, knowledge, and concern relative to an outdoor specialty like climbing to well serve that clientele, but I'd say those days are long since gone at this point. i'm confused. are you suggesting that REI didn't respond to part of a recall notice posted by CCH? or are you just saying that they should have broadened CCH's recall by doing pull testing on their own? if the answer is yes to either then my follow up question is: WTF? i thought mgears testing was WAY above and beyond the responsibility a retailer should have to undertake.
As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option.
I suspect it's because they are now simply retailers with no way to accomodate or treat one product much different than another relative to a recall or product defect. To have done the testing would mean that someone at those retailers still in power understood the importance of the issue to the climbing community and / or cared enough to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
Aug 23, 2006, 9:12 PM
Post #138 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
One of the problems on this site is that folks take one comment in an otherwise great post and find something in their experience that makes them disagree. Thats ok, but then they draw the line and start throwing mud.
Healyje's comment about not trusting one piece between you and the deck is actually the same philosophy behind not rapping off one piece. Yes, many of us have broken that rule a well. The key is to know when you are at higher risk and deal with it.
Check out this thread, it was a bolt that failed, not a piece of pro, but the same philosophy applies.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...topic_view=&start=30
As far as aliens go? Until there is more info it seems like mostly chatter. FISH's idea of a tester is great; however, CCH ought to be thinking about testing ALL of their sh&& and it is sad to think you gotto test all your gear yourself for the loads that the mfr indicates. Your lives and their livlihood could depend on their stated loads to be at least close. Frankly, if you are manufacturing a safety device, and it is rated for a certain load, I find it negligent to leave bad sh** out there on the market. Perhaps even criminally so; however, I doubt there are laws out there in this regard and as climbers I dont think we want laws like that...Bu my guess is a civil suit might triumph with the right evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
Aug 23, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #139 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
In reply to: Josh, you of all people should understand the underlying issue of personal responsibility.
;) yeah.
In reply to: If the bottom line is we are consumers first and climber second I'd agree with you - and maybe that's the way younger climbers now view things, as just another consumer issue. Most older climbers who remember making some gear, tying their own slings, and using the latest dubiously designed but well manufactured piece of gear probably have a different take on things
Of course, Aliens seem well-designed and dubiously manufactured.
In reply to: I personally still believe you are ultimately responsible for everything that occurs when you leave the ground. Bad things can and do happen...
In terms of risks, personally, I'm willing to risk climbing with only one rope -- even though it is a single piece of equipment that keeps me from the deck. I know that you are willing to take that risk too. If our ropes were to fail (and not due to a sharp edge or being exposed to battery acid or something like that), are you saying we are responsible for whatever happens to us? It seems to me that the only logical conclusion here is that responsibility is shared. I'm responsible for engaging in a risky behavior and I go into it knowing that equipment can fail. But, like you said, the equipment manufacturer is not absolved -- especially not just because there's a "Climbing is dangerous..." sticker on their gear. If they rate their equipment to a certain strength and claim to do quality control to ensure that these ratings are accurate, and then their gear fails due to a manufacturing error... well, there is a hell of a lot of responsibility on their shoulders too.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
Aug 23, 2006, 9:28 PM
Post #140 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
js, I could not agree with you more. The one thing that I think the mfr is responsible for is to ensure (and in keeping with current undustrial stds) that their load ratings actually mean something in a lab. Once it is on the rock they cant control the placement. But this particular failure sounds bad...
|
|
|
|
|
antiqued
Aug 23, 2006, 10:11 PM
Post #141 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243
|
In reply to: As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option.
The big box retailers have the opportunity to test a good size sample of all cams before they go on their shelves! They don't because it's not their job, it is the manufacturer's. Why didn't such screening occur at CCH on returned cams? Weren't all returned cams pull tested before going back to customers / big boxes?
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 11:16 PM
Post #142 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option. The big box retailers have the opportunity to test a good size sample of all cams before they go on their shelves! They don't because it's not their job, it is the manufacturer's. Why didn't such screening occur at CCH on returned cams? Weren't all returned cams pull tested before going back to customers / big boxes?
Yes, they were tested before being returned, and there is recent thread in the {Gear Head} forum in regards to this, with pictures provided.
And once again, ANY piece of gear that has a design flaw or defect that results in a failure whether on the ground during random cleaning or testing, or high on a rock when a catastrophic failure results in a tragic accident is unacceptable, and the manufacturer(s) should certainly take responsibility for their part, I've never once stated otherwise... I have however stated rather emphatically that it's critical for all of the facts to be properly presented before any of us can ever really know what has happened.
My point for bringing up the C3 spring & trigger bar issue, is because while they didn't fail on route, they do have an apparent design flaw that could most certainly allow them to do so. Also, how many defective harnesses were shipped out with the buckle problems..? That particular issue wouldn't have been one, if each and every harness were simply looked over before shipping, but they weren't, and these defective and recalled harnesses were and still are in circulation and active use, and thank God we've yet to read about a catastrophic failure, but the potential clearly exists -- just like Aliens with bad brazes.
Hell, while reviewing the Metolius thread earlier today, I caught a post about a mis-drilled trigger bar that resulted in a broken trigger. Yes, it was quickly replaced by Metolius when brought to their attention, but what I didn't see was either a public statement or a recall notice in regards to other potentially mis-drilled trigger bars -- much the same as with CCH and the mis-drilled Orange Alien lobes. In either instance, both are an unacceptable pain in the ass, but neither would result in a safety issue.
In reply to: I recently had a issue with a Metolius #7. I took a 15-20 footer and it held fine. When I got up there to pass up the cam again I notice it was a weird shape. Pulled it out and the thumb bar had broke from one of the sides attached to the cable. Sent it to metolius and found out that the holes had been drilled off set causing it to be weak. The replaced very quickly. Not a real big deal, still held the fall, and that to me is what is important.
JZ
As for my fall and regarding it as a "novice mistake", call it what you will, but what it actually was, was an onsight ground up clean trad FA attempt in which the tiny tree was about the diameter of your finger, and was slung solely for the purposes of creating a re-direct to ensure that the #4 nut would bite at a specific angle if I fell... I fell when I went for the crux and found nothing but a smooth sloper. I was at least 40 feet up and only had another 10' to top out on this potential route, when I fell onto the only piece of gear that I had been able to place. At that time, I did not yet have any BallNutz, Zeros or Aliens, so the only micro gear I had available was the tiny nuts, and that #4 was the smallest on my rack. The route in question will eat the 3 smaller BallNutz, as well as Green and Grey Zeros, but I've yet to get my head in the right place to re-attempt the FA, because had the #4 pulled (the tree/redirect obviously worked), I would have likely been killed that day, as I inverted when I hit the ledge, and was caught upside-down, w/o a helmet, 20 feet above a very rocky deck. I'm also aware that most "amateurs" (of which I clearly am) probably wouldn't have set a strategic directional to coincide with the angle of the fall-line in regards to the route itself.
http://gallery.gr-outdoors.net/album/00000001/BD4.jpg
Ignore the shadows and insets in the picture, because there is absolutely nothing there but very shallow & flaring ridges.
Flame away... I have my Big Boy panties on! :righton:
-Tim
|
|
|
|
|
fourfa
Aug 23, 2006, 11:17 PM
Post #143 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Posts: 39
|
What concerns would you guys have about Aliens with build dates of 5-99 and 10-00? A recent craigslist score from an climber selling a garage full of gear. Excellent condition, many of them never placed.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 11:25 PM
Post #144 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option. The big box retailers have the opportunity to test a good size sample of all cams before they go on their shelves! They don't because it's not their job, it is the manufacturer's. Why didn't such screening occur at CCH on returned cams? Weren't all returned cams pull tested before going back to customers / big boxes?
Of course by default it is a manufacturer's responsibility to ship reliable product, modern practices and QC systems, and individually or statistically pull test gear. But that wasn't the case at CCH at the time of the recall incident and given no one knew whether CCH had the will, capability, or capacity to do a larger-scale pull testing the big box retailers should have had an independent lab pull test the returns and a [statistically] significant portion the stock they pulled off their shelves. That is, if they really were anything more than that retailers. They had the resources to do it and the REI or EMS of even 10 or 15 years ago when they still at least vaguely in tune with climbing would have instituted the testing. At one time these companies did actually know something about the products they sell - sadly, that's no longer the case in the climbing department or, from what I can tell, on their product safety review committees.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 11:29 PM
Post #145 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: What concerns would you guys have about Aliens with build dates of 5-99 and 10-00? A recent craigslist score from an climber selling a garage full of gear. Excellent condition, many of them never placed.
Personally I'd bounce test any Alien made prior to the date I see a formal audit has been completed that finds their QC processes up to snuff.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 23, 2006, 11:38 PM
Post #146 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: As I said in my post, Paul and MGear responded more than admirably. What I'm saying is there was an opportunity for the big box retailers who had their hands on a large quantity of stock and returned aliens to test a good size sample of suspect Aliens, dimpled and non-dimpled alike, and chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. That would have been a real service to themselves, CCH, and to their customers who climb. They basically didn't even consider such an option. The big box retailers have the opportunity to test a good size sample of all cams before they go on their shelves! They don't because it's not their job, it is the manufacturer's. Why didn't such screening occur at CCH on returned cams? Weren't all returned cams pull tested before going back to customers / big boxes? Yes, they were tested before being returned, and there is recent thread in the {Gear Head} forum in regards to this, with pictures provided.
No, CCH has tested recalled cams and cams folks have sent to them for testing. The opportunity that was lost at the time was the chance to test a significant sampling of the cams that were on, or recently departed from store shelves. Such testing on a large enough of a scale likely would have found non-dimpled brazing failures if they existed, and this incident now suggests they do. Such testing could have resulted in a broader recall scope that may have helped prevent this accident. The testing you refer to is and was no substitute for the opportunity that was lost.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Aug 24, 2006, 1:00 PM
Post #147 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
So, are we ever going to see a picture of the cam?
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 25, 2006, 4:18 AM
Post #149 of 194
(32524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Small request. Could the OP and the people involved make sure that Dave and CHH are contacted and in this loop for sure?
I'd like to hear what the factory says on all this.
Did some research on putting together a force measuring and testing device to test these and it would be priced out of my league. Russ's thing of having a strong dog on a leash, with a screamer connected to your bumper and the Alien with a cat walking in front to activate the dog may have some merit after all. :lol:
I don't think any old Schnauzer will do either, you'd need a big Rottweiler or an Irish Wolfhound kind of dog. :roll:
But at least it would be some kind of QC check!
Anybody have a stout dog they want to volunteer to be an Alien tester? Pay is all the Friskies they can eat, and of course the odd occasional cat as well for when breakage does occur.
|
|
|
|
|
aclove
Aug 26, 2006, 6:15 AM
Post #150 of 194
(32552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 14
|
I bounce tested my dozen or so non dimpled Aliens on the Prow at Paradise Forks today. They all held, nonetheless I'm done placing Aliens until CCH puts forth some sort of major effort to boost my trust and confidence. Anyone one know if they plan anything(besides the current minor effort)? My first thought when I heard about the recall/failure was how I tried multiple times to stop by CCH in Laramie and get some of my cams looked at and talk to them, possibly pick up some cams. After 3 weeks, I got ahold of someone and his excuse was they were too busy smoking pot(that was summer 2003 and I haven't purchased an Alien since). BTW there are bloody t-shirts at the base of the Prow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
