|
the_climber
May 29, 2007, 3:13 PM
Post #26 of 78
(4373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
JAB wrote: While more info usually is better, wouldn't it give the picture of Trango pushing over the quality control to the customer?
If it was done in such a manner to show what it is that the quality control people are looking for then no, it could show greater responsibility on the part of the company. Perhaps it could be presented as an inspector looking at then with zoomed in circles of the good and bad.
With all the questions regarding quality control being thrown around latley, showing it in action in not a bad Idea. If not in the pamphlet, then pehaps a section in a catalog or on the web site.
(This post was edited by the_climber on May 29, 2007, 3:14 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
kimgraves
May 29, 2007, 11:30 PM
Post #27 of 78
(4273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 1186
|
the_climber wrote: JAB wrote: While more info usually is better, wouldn't it give the picture of Trango pushing over the quality control to the customer? If it was done in such a manner to show what it is that the quality control people are looking for then no, it could show greater responsibility on the part of the company. Perhaps it could be presented as an inspector looking at then with zoomed in circles of the good and bad. With all the questions regarding quality control being thrown around lately, showing it in action in not a bad Idea. If not in the pamphlet, then perhaps a section in a catalog or on the web site.
I agree with this. Something on the website entitled, "What to look for when inspecting your gear." And a sentence saying, "We are committed to catch all manufacturing defects. However the end user should inspect every piece of gear they buy. Here's what to look for."
It's a partnership - and should be.
Best, Kim
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
May 29, 2007, 11:37 PM
Post #28 of 78
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
I feel as though a pamphlet would say "We're too lazy and cheap to inspect our gear ourselves, so here's what you do..."
But the website/catalog page is a good idea!
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
May 30, 2007, 12:25 AM
Post #29 of 78
(4228 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
carabiner96 wrote: I feel as though a pamphlet would say "We're too lazy and cheap to inspect our gear ourselves, so here's what you do..."
Exactly. If it's that easy to SEE a bad unit, then the manuf. has to LOOK AT each piece. It doesn't take long.
Reminds me of those Petrenko cams...
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
May 30, 2007, 4:26 PM
Post #30 of 78
(4142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
kimgraves wrote: the_climber wrote: JAB wrote: While more info usually is better, wouldn't it give the picture of Trango pushing over the quality control to the customer? If it was done in such a manner to show what it is that the quality control people are looking for then no, it could show greater responsibility on the part of the company. Perhaps it could be presented as an inspector looking at then with zoomed in circles of the good and bad. With all the questions regarding quality control being thrown around lately, showing it in action in not a bad Idea. If not in the pamphlet, then perhaps a section in a catalog or on the web site. I agree with this. Something on the website entitled, "What to look for when inspecting your gear." And a sentence saying, "We are committed to catch all manufacturing defects. However the end user should inspect every piece of gear they buy. Here's what to look for." It's a partnership - and should be. Best, Kim
What do you say Mal? Could Trango get something like this going on the Wed site or in the Catalog? I guess it would kinda be an out line of the quality control and what is being looked for in that process, or something along those lines.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
May 31, 2007, 4:15 PM
Post #31 of 78
(4052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
I suspect that your nutz are the reason mgear just asked me to return my new and perfectly good-looking nutz for a pull test to destruction.
|
|
|
|
|
highangle
May 31, 2007, 4:49 PM
Post #32 of 78
(4016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 151
|
WOW! Mgear is being pro-active about testing like that! First Paul Fish confirms the Alien issue, now he is taking care of this?!! (not saying there is anything wrong with nutz or Trango!)
Glad to send him my business any day!
(This post was edited by highangle on May 31, 2007, 4:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
May 31, 2007, 5:26 PM
Post #33 of 78
(3994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
highangle wrote: WOW! Mgear is being pro-active about testing like that! First Paul Fish confirms the Alien issue, now he is taking care of this?!! (not saying there is anything wrong with nutz or Trango!) Glad to send him my business any day!
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 31, 2007, 6:40 PM
Post #34 of 78
(3948 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 31, 2007, 6:53 PM
Post #35 of 78
(3934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
MGear and Trango are simply showing how the real deal conducts their affairs. In days gone by REI or EMS might have played the MGear role - but those days are long gone in another example of the evolving battle between Internet and Big Box retailers.
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Jun 1, 2007, 10:43 PM
Post #36 of 78
(3849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
Egads. 
Apologies to anyone who got their gear confiscated. I guess an over reaction is better than the alternative and everyone will love Trango even more for their paranoia.
Typical day in my life. YUP. Caused a nation wide recall today. uh- Oops.
Someday I'll be touring a nuclear reactor and inadvertantly lean on the lever that blows up the city. Welcome to my world..
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Jun 1, 2007, 11:10 PM
Post #37 of 78
(3832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Hope to return the favor some day.  Perhaps it will be me in the control room. 
Shipped mine off today. BTW, I'm pretty certain that the mgear person that called did not use the word "recall". I think it was something along the lines of a request to send them back for testing to destruction due to questionable braze(s) on some others (yours I presume). It seems likely that Trango just wants/needs more data thus far. And for a moment, I did consider refusing to return them - they looked that good to me.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jun 1, 2007, 11:18 PM
Post #38 of 78
(3826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
billl7 wrote: maldaly wrote: Gang, I've never brazed anything in my life and all I know about it is what Hugh Banner (RIP) told me one evening over a bottle of scotch. What I gleaned: - The scotch needs to be smooth and even at the joint - The scotch shoudl flow arounf and through the cables - the scotch should completely fill and penetrate through the entire depth of the hole. Well said, succinct summary.
perhaps the scotch has flown around and through the cables, penetrating through the entire depth of the hole (i call my brain).
ok, back on topic.
yeah, mal... when will we be seeing Trango Aliens? At least we know you climb... who knows if D.W. does? (probably not on aliens anymore, if at all!)
WE do appreciate your remaining in contact with the climbing community... your prompt input on issues which may or may not directly impact the company you operate says a world to those of us out here in (real) life.
It should speak to those of us who participate in this (insert objectionable superlative) activity as much as DW's input (or lack thereof) does.
In fact, WE do appreciate how much you have given back to our community year in and year out. It is one of the highlights of my year to see you MC'ing the auction every year down Ouray way. Keep givin' 'em hell, Mal.
again... thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Jun 1, 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #39 of 78
(3821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
The Ouray auction is one of the highlights of my year, too. You know I got $10,000 for my "Got Stump?" shirt this year? That makes almost $20,000 total that the ice climbing community has donated in the name of that shirt for operations of the ice park.
bill7, you got it right. After I saw this thread I was just about to pick up the phone to MGear and I got call (or email. I forget) from Eric at MGear. We decided to do this mini-check just to see where reality is. I've pull tested tons of BallNutz to failure and never had a braze blow on the #2-5, regardless of the appearance of the braze. They all break at the carabiner loop. The #1s all pull the braze off the sides, thus the low strength rating.
One of the saddest moments in my career was when Hugh Banner (RIP) and i realized that we wouldn't be able to infuse Scotch into the braze joints of the Brass Offsets. We tried and tried but the stuff would just boil off when the torch hit it. We thought we were on to something when we tried to apply our cold fusion theories to the problem at hand but the scientists at the UU research lab beat us to it. And then it turned out to be a fraud!
Hang in there. I'll be testing next week. In the meantime, I'm off to the SuperTopo beer gathering tonight at the Southern Sun.
Mal
(This post was edited by maldaly on Jun 1, 2007, 11:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jun 2, 2007, 12:39 AM
Post #40 of 78
(3788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
Mal,
You’ve managed to make even a mini-recall confidence inspiring and fun!
Course I wasn’t asked to send my Ball-Nutz in.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Jul 4, 2007, 1:11 PM
Post #41 of 78
(3672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Bump.
(am curious how the testing is going)
|
|
|
|
|
ncrockclimber
Jul 4, 2007, 4:12 PM
Post #42 of 78
(3601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2006
Posts: 286
|
Mal,
I met you briefly at the NRR, and was impressed with the way that you took the time to answer my questions about Trango gear at your booth. You were patient and really took the time to make sure that I understood the finer point of your product line. Your handling of this issue also impresses me. I like doing business with people who have good attitudes and stand behind their products. For what it is worth, you have won my business, and my next set of draws (not to mentions anything else I need) will be purchased from Trango.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Jul 11, 2007, 7:13 PM
Post #43 of 78
(3460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
Hi gang,
BallNutz are in and tested and I'm relieved to say that they all met the minimum spec of 8kN. Sorry this took so long but we had a first order FedEx epic and the units got lost for 2 weeks. It appears that small bubbles or un-conformities in the "weep" holes aren't a strength issue. All of them failed in the cable system somewhere. Pictures below. The far right unit is the one that justthemaid (the OP) returned.
Group shot:
#1 - 10kN Cable failure at thumb loop.
#2 - 8.8kN Cable failure at nicropress sleeve
#3 - 10.4kN Cable failure at braze
#4 - 9.9 kN Cable failure at thumb bar
#5 (original unit) - 8.15 kN Cable failure at braze
BallNuts have always failed in a number of different modes. I wish we could get them all to fail at the thumb loop (In theory the highest strength possible) but it just hasn't happened. I'd also like to see more consistent breaking strengths but with the variety of failure modes we can't do that either. I've always rated BallNutz by the rounding down to the nearest kN from the lowest breaking strength.
Be safe out there.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jul 11, 2007, 7:43 PM
Post #44 of 78
(3429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
Nice. Can you imagine being in a situation where you took a 8kn fall on a ballnut? Yikes! That'd be a story to tell.....
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Jul 11, 2007, 8:03 PM
Post #45 of 78
(3407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
Thank you Mal!
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 11, 2007, 9:19 PM
Post #46 of 78
(3346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
the_climber wrote: JAB wrote: While more info usually is better, wouldn't it give the picture of Trango pushing over the quality control to the customer? If it was done in such a manner to show what it is that the quality control people are looking for then no, it could show greater responsibility on the part of the company.
I agree with this. Showing folks how to inspect gear isn't a bad move for the manufacturer. I'd view it as "Hey, here's your gear item. We strive to make sure our products are up to snuff, and you should make sure we're doing our job. We have to answer to you, our customer, so if you see something here you don't like, holler and we'll make things right."
That sort of thing.
And it raises awareness, always a good thing. While lots of folks here are diligent about inspecting the gear they use, other people are not: Go to store, buy cam, go to crag, place cam.
Big time kudos to Mal for being a stand-up guy and running an honest, ethical business.
|
|
|
|
|
boku
Jul 11, 2007, 9:23 PM
Post #47 of 78
(3344 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 278
|
maldaly wrote: ...I've always rated BallNutz by the rounding down to the nearest kN from the lowest breaking strength...
Not to complain or anything, but have you considered adopting a 3 sigma rating for the Ballnutz?
I'm no math whiz, but based on the test results here and the Wiki page on Standard Deviation, I get a mean average of 9.45 kN and a standard deviation of 0.839 kN (did I do that right? Anybody?).
According to the BD page on 3 sigma, applying 3 sigma to these test results would yield a rating of of 6.93 kN - say 7 kN if you fudge it upwards just a tiny bit. Of course, this is based on a small set of results that are likely not representative; more extensive testing might result in a very different 3 sigma rating.
Thanks, Bob K.
(This post was edited by boku on Jul 11, 2007, 9:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
tinnchris
Jul 11, 2007, 9:41 PM
Post #48 of 78
(3320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 13
|
STDEV = .938
Yay, I have something to contribute!
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Jul 11, 2007, 10:02 PM
Post #49 of 78
(3297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Very cool. Glad we all had a nice ending to this story - a credit to Trango for the story and especially the ending. And, I just got a call from Mountain Gear who facilitated the return of the good-looking set I had previously. They conveying the results too. I arranged for an order of a new set.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Jul 11, 2007, 10:07 PM
Post #50 of 78
(3294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
boku,
There are a lot of different ways to rate things, 3-sigma being a good one. If you want to use it go ahead. I don't like it because with most sample groups all it does is allow a specified percentage of the sample group (about 11 in 10,000 units) to fail below the rated strength. I don't like failure so I use the minimum breaking strength. If I ever test a unit and it fails below the rated strength I'll lower the rating on the whole bunch. Again, using a 3-sigma analysis with most sample groups a single unit that fails below the rating would be unlikely to change the rating. Most industries use a "working load" rating of 25% of average failure rate. I don't like that either. The working load rating for most carabiners would be 6 kN. Back in the good old days, we used average breaking strength. 3-sigma is a huge improvement over that and I like to think that minimum breaking strength is an improvement over 3-sigma.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
