|
|
|
|
hawthorne5630
Aug 23, 2006, 4:42 AM
Post #76 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 15
|
Regarding proof testing, it is generally not an accepted method of quality control anymore because of fatigue.
A proof test that is carried out at just below the yield point can be very bad especially if the fatigue properties of the system are not understood. I have seen aluminum casting alloys fail in less than 10 cycles when tested just below yield. All of the structural materials in a cam suffer from fatigue, even the braze.
Proof testing a cam becomes even more problematic because it is not a simple test coupon, it is a complex device. There are tensile stresses in the cable, shear stresses in the braze, bending of the axle, compression of the cam lobes, etc. In fact it would be very difficult to determine a yield point for a cam period.
A much better method is to produce a batch of cams with certified materials and mechanically test a sample to failure. If the sample passes the test, then the remaining cams would be subject to non-destructive testing to determine that certain critical areas meet the inspection criteria, such as voids in the braze joint, porosity in the cam lobes, etc. In fact, a defective braze joint would be easy to detect using radiography or ultrasound.
I don’t know if anybody does this. After all, climbing gear is a consumer market (that’s why a consumer grade hammer costs $10, the same hammer in aerospace grade costs $100 and a medical grade hammer costs $1000). If any gear manufacturers do, I would be very happy to hear about it. If not, it would be nice to see gear manufacturers implement such a procedure.
Anyway, I’m glad it wasn’t worse for the guy that fell. I hope he makes a full and quick recovery.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Aug 23, 2006, 4:43 AM
Post #77 of 194
(34775 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
[quote:3ed47751d9="russwalling"]would you guys (Alien users) be interested in a home test kit to check your own Aliens right there at the pad, no shipping back and forth, and no wait?[/quote:3ed47751d9]
I'd be interested, though I'd willing to send them out too.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Aug 23, 2006, 4:56 AM
Post #78 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
I cant wait to hear the outcome of this because I'm an avid (obsessed?) fan of aliens and climb on them a lot.
Ya Russ, I'm interested, but cost is of course an issue.
as far as the following tangent...
In reply to: In reply to: Sorry kids... OK dad. And by the way, if you think a green Alien and a #1 Ball Nut constitutes "thin :shock:" gear, you need to get out of Arkansas.
I agree on the green alien, but a #1 ballnut??? That's thin gear no matter where you're from.
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Aug 23, 2006, 4:57 AM
Post #79 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Hey Russ:
(sorry fo the drift)
I'd be interested in being able to test some stuff to 1000 pounds.
It would be cool for booty gear finds, like cams I've yarded out of cracks but don't really trust enough to use and my "el cap base" biner finds. All that euro weirdness would look great on my rack. Not that I encourage such behavior, of course.
My 30 aliens, all manufactured in the last 2 years thanks to my rack being stolen, could stand for the test, too.
Glad to hear this climber is recovering.
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
russwalling
Aug 23, 2006, 5:10 AM
Post #80 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2002
Posts: 239
|
Kate: when you come down here we can test out all your stuff. It is fun and easy... and eye-opening.
From the previous page:
Cost *is* a big issue. Shipping is the killer. Unless you have a bunch of cams, spending 7 to 10 bucks each way plus insurance is just too much money. The "home test kit" would be more like a couple bucks per cam plus some shipping.... probably like $4.00 via Priority mail. This seems cheap enough that even the guy with only a handful of Aliens can get some sleep at night.
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Aug 23, 2006, 5:26 AM
Post #81 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
That would be cool, Russ.
Of course, I shipped you a batch today for the regular fee, its worth it to me to know now and know for sure. With 30 cams the shipping cost is worth it and peak season is right around the corner.
People could combine with partners, lump 15 cams (or whatever) in a box and save money on shipping.
FWIW, FISH's batch-testing of rivit hangers restored my faith after the *epic spiraling wonderment and screamer deployment exercise* last spring, I feel pretty sure he do the same with aliens.
Disclaimer: I am impressed with the changes CCH is making, and wish them the best. Its just that all my aliens were made during some 'hard times' for them so I'm going to make for sure-sure, regardless of the story behind this orange cam.
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 12:29 PM
Post #82 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
In reply to: Too much speculation without any of the requisite facts surrounding this situation...
It sounds like the Aliens are getting some seriously bad hype. If you drop a biner, do you pick it up and say...oh..well, I'm sure it'll still hold....
Or do you clip it on your lawnmower and just have a new key chain biner? (or fixed draw for some POS jug haul).
I'd like to apply this common trend to that of the Aliens...Someone got jacked, and it seems like it wasn't a bad placement. The dude did what most of us has done...clipped a piece, said F...take, weighted it and BOOOM! The cam broke and he fell and got seriously injured.
Honestly, I do some stupid things some time (thankfully none of them got pregnant). But this guy who was injured didn't do anything wrong, except trust a cam that was suppose to do its job. And that cam didn't do its job...honestly guys, he could have died. I don't care if your grandpa Irvin is putting your through college with his patent on the "Aliens".
You can't stick up for a piece of gear who failed to do its job, when this job is so important. Heck, if you're diving and your regulator (or whatever its called) goes due to faulty manufactoring and your drown, was regulator company being irresponsible?
I'd seriously think twice before considering buying these pieces, especially with the new BD and Metolius out there. Its your life man. Think of all the women (or men)/animals/misc objects out there that need your loving.
Does this mean that there's going to be a bunch of close-outs and cheap aliens on ebay? Maybe I'll get a quadruple set
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 2:09 PM
Post #84 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I searched through and did not find any posts in regard to someone being seriouly injured or killed because of a Black Diamond or Metolius cam blowing apart, can you direct me to this please?
Thanks.
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Aug 23, 2006, 2:13 PM
Post #85 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: It sounds like the Aliens are getting some seriously bad hype. If you drop a biner, do you pick it up and say...oh..well, I'm sure it'll still hold.... Or do you clip it on your lawnmower and just have a new key chain biner? (or fixed draw for some POS jug haul).
I use it, same goes for the alien it was attached to.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 2:20 PM
Post #86 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
In reply to: But hey, that new Russian gear looks promising though, and there have been no reported failures of any of them as of yet...
If their gear is anything like their SKSs and AK-47s, we'll all be in great shape! :D
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 2:48 PM
Post #87 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Trophy for you! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 23, 2006, 2:52 PM
Post #88 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
:lol: laf thanks man
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
dfoote07
Aug 23, 2006, 3:04 PM
Post #89 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2006
Posts: 50
|
Hey
I have been thinking about getting a set of aliens, but I was waiting for the bad hype to go down about all the recalls. Has anyone had any problems with the new aliens? Just wondering before I sink some money into a set. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 23, 2006, 4:13 PM
Post #90 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
CCH Alien
Weight 2.4 oz
Weight (grams) 68g
Strength 9.34kN
2100 lbf
Range 10-77 mm
0.39-0.67"
Pull testing sold separately
tgreene,
Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years.
thanks!
-B
|
|
|
|
|
capn_morgan
Aug 23, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #91 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 565
|
In response to hawthornes post...you state that proof loading of cams might be weakening them. As I understand it the tests are based on the strengths of the wire that is used, which is the weak link. The way I read the info on CCHs website was that the stem assemblies were tested after brazing...I would assume before they have axles and lobes attached to them. The AL head should be pretty burly, and the braze if done correctly will be the strongest part of the whole piece. As far as I am aware, fatigue is not a huge issue with SS cables, particulalry at such a low number of cycles.
Maybe we should continue this discussion someplace else...it is cerainly and interesting one.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 23, 2006, 4:26 PM
Post #92 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures.
you mean the metolious cam which failed because the climber took a fall which exceeded the force rating for that cam?
oooohh yes, you got him there. CHECK MATE!
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Aug 23, 2006, 4:29 PM
Post #93 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
If you're going to do a pull test by car, wouldn't a single strand of 3mm accessory cord with figure 8's at both ends work? It's not as precise as a sewn load limiter, but the 3mm cord should break at the knot at less than 2KN, which should be good enough for a pull test without damaging the alien. Maybe 2mm cord, but I don't know if that would allow any more load than a good bounce test.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 4:50 PM
Post #94 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures. you mean the metolious cam which failed because the climber took a fall which exceeded the force rating for that cam? oooohh yes, you got him there. CHECK MATE! |
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Aug 23, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #95 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: tgreene, Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years. thanks!
http://www.rockclimbing.com/topic/118108
I especially liked the comment about having to tape the springs in place, so they will function properly... :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 23, 2006, 5:13 PM
Post #96 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: You must have missed the posts about the very recent Metolius and BD failures.
I saw your post about them and felt that, at least in the Metolius case, your post was misleading and factually incorrect.
First of all, the 00 TCU you spoke of did not blow out under body weight. Second, to contrast Metolius' and CCH's responses to their respective gear failing, let's play a game. I'll name a post-accident manufacturer response and you tell me which company did it.
1. Pull 100% of finished product from the warehouse and test every single unit to 90% rated strength.
2. Test 50 units to total failure.
3. Share the results of testing with the public within 72 hours of the accident.
4. Call the accident a hoax.
CCH's recent and apparently unchanged QC history is plane as day. Obviously, they didn't even have a plan in place to deal with such an emergency, despite the fact that their cams were already under fire for the -- still unaddressed -- misdrilled axle holes. We certainly can afford to lose such a company. And maybe it's about time we did. Anybody who would purchase an Alien right now is either a complete moron or he's been living in a closet on Mars for the last year or he has a Russ-Walling Home Alien Tester.
Speaking of which, Russ, I too would be very interested in such a dee-vice... enough to pay $$ for it... and as long as I could use it on all makes and models, not just Aliens. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 23, 2006, 5:24 PM
Post #97 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: tgreene, Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years. thanks! I especially liked the comment about having to tape the springs in place, so they will function properly... :shock:
I don't know what the deal with the Metolius cam was -- it certainly isn't well documented in the thread. But anyway...
...I have been using cams for 20 years. During that time -- right up until the Aliens fiasco -- it was axiomatic that camming units DID NOT FAIL. In fact, the rated strengths on cams were always considered a joke because it was known that the placement would fail at a much lower load than the unit itself could bear.
In this thread some pos(t)ers have insinuated that the accident victim was culpable because he did not back up the protection. This is utterly ridiculous. Except for small wires, the purpose of backing up placements has never been to protect against the piece breaking; it has always been to protect against the piece pulling, either by tracking out or by breaking the rock in which it is placed. Tracking can occur in soft rock. Breakage of the rock is mainly an issue with small gear, which focuses large forces on a small area of rock; but it also can occur (needless to say) in any bad rock. Thus, a medium or large cam that is well placed in good, hard rock is not the type of placement that one would be expected to back up.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Aug 23, 2006, 5:25 PM
Post #98 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
I am the cam pull tester. Another couple of burgers and donuts and I should be able to bounce test any cam, constructed properly or not, into complete pulverization. Send your Aliens to me -- if they hold my fat ass for a vigorous rendition of the bounce-test boogy then you're golden.
On a serious note, this sucks. I was hoping the CCH had their QC problems behind them, but now it looks like I may need to start questioning the integrity of those that are even of the older variety on my rack. I have already put nearly all of mine through the "boogy" test, so mine may be pre-debacle Aliens.
Thanks for keeping us informed about the failures.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 23, 2006, 5:33 PM
Post #99 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
From tgreene's report of a BD CAM FAILURE:
In reply to: The wire that attaches the lobe to the trigger/springs had popped out of place and caused the lobe to get stuck in position.
In reply to: I was able to pop it back in.
I repeat:
tgreene,
Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years.
thanks!
-B
I have had a full set of C3's for over a year now and have had no problems.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Aug 23, 2006, 5:36 PM
Post #100 of 194
(34776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: tgreene, Please direct me to the report of a BD Cam failure in the last five years. thanks! I especially liked the comment about having to tape the springs in place, so they will function properly... :shock:
You are being purposefully misleading here. This thread discusses a cam failure that entails the functional components separating. To equate the spring mechanism of a cam being nonfunctional to a cam failing in a fall is unbelievable to me.
You Mr. Greene are an asshole.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
|
