|
healyje
Aug 4, 2007, 7:21 AM
Post #26 of 59
(4129 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
shimanilami wrote: I just don't want to see the backlash against CCH put them out of business, especially if they are able to get their act together...
I had the same sentiment and as an ex-ISO Auditor I tried to do what I could - but - after my experience and if you followed all the threads for that past several years examining the range and time span of failures you'd realize we are well past that point. They are not going to get their act together and it is simply time they were shut down in my opinion. And as far as I'm concerned, any retailer still carrying them should be stoned - and not the good kind. No one in the business can afford to have these guys still in operation - it will cause problems for them all sooner or later - problems none of us need.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 5, 2007, 3:17 AM
Post #27 of 59
(4057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
shimanilami wrote: ....the root cause of each of the failures is a bad braze. Fixing that process (i.e. "pulling this shit off") shouldn't be difficult
You said that 3 times dude, in 3 separate posts. Duhhh, we all get that. Duhhh. Duhhh. Duhhh. SHOULD be easy to fix it. Duhh. We all agree with you.
What we don't get is AFTER all the faulty crap they cranked out, CCH moves to a "better system" with QC checks and ACTUAL (alleged) TESTING EACH and EVERY CAM before it goes out the door in an attempt to fix this issue and then we get 2 actual failures on new cams, and 2 more failures of 10 new cams tested on a machine.
Go read that Soulders crack fall where dude eats dirt, breaks more bones than a person has a right to break: because of a new, "TESTED BEFORE IT WENT OUT THE CCH DOOR" yellow Alien failure.
Maybe you think it "should" be easy to fix this issue, but you are not making this gear shimanilami and for them it isn't.
So what I got to say is that they can and I hope they do: FUCK OFF AND DIE as a company before some poor innocent actually dies and has to be scraped off the dirt with a snowshovel because although it SHOULD have been easy to fix this issue, CCH DID NOT do it.
Oh, I have a lot of Aliens. I got in 7 pitches today and used them on most of them. I'll still use them. But I'm praying they go out of business before somebody dies and then the survivors sues them out of business.
Cause then EVERYBODY looses.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...;;page=unread#unread
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Aug 5, 2007, 4:35 AM
Post #28 of 59
(4038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
billcoe_ wrote: . Maybe you think it "should" be easy to fix this issue, but you are not making this gear shimanilami...
Hmm. perhaps we are basing our responses on a false assumption.
Maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
Banks
Aug 5, 2007, 5:08 AM
Post #29 of 59
(4032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Posts: 35
|
stymingersfink wrote: billcoe_ wrote: . Maybe you think it "should" be easy to fix this issue, but you are not making this gear shimanilami... Hmm. perhaps we are basing our responses on a false assumption. Maybe?
All is not forgoten and all is not fine.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Aug 5, 2007, 9:31 AM
Post #30 of 59
(4000 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
shimanilami wrote: It seems we all basically agree that the design of CCH Aliens is sound.
no, not really. there is obviously an issue with the brazing process such that it cannot be performed by a trained monkey, therefore should not be attempted by an assembler in Chighna. Or Wyoming.
find another way to attach the cable to the head which CAN be performed by a trained monkey and you might have a new patent, but I doubt THAT's gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Aug 5, 2007, 10:26 PM
Post #31 of 59
(3930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
bobruef wrote: sspssp wrote: tradklime wrote: I'm as big a fan of aliens as anyone. No other cam ever made works as well as aliens. However, if you have post recall "tensile tested" cams failing, you have a problem. The recent failures prove that CCH's process has not been "validated". I have heard talk of non-dimpled failures. Has there been reports of "tensile tested" cams failing? I was not aware of any. If so, that would certainly raise the red flag even higher. Yes. Here's the list I was keeping, but I don't think it's complete: In another thread, I compiled a list of Alien failures documented here and on supertopo (from a quick search and memory). I'm reposting it here for those who've not been following the whole messy saga from the begining. For those of you counting, that brings the number of documented failures/faulty cams to 11 (by my count... please someone correct me if my info is wrong or incomplete). I don't want to be alarmist, but I believe this is important information for those who are not aware of the previous failures/production mistakes. The list: Again, If the threads I linked here aren't the best sources, or my descriptions are innacurate, somebody please post up a correction. Two Tensile tested Aliens fail 1100 and 1200 lbs (at the braze) http://www.supertopo.com/...id=379659&tn=220
Yes, I would say that is another red flag.
However, the cams that failed in lead falls concern me much more. In those cases, whatever sort of forces are actually generated by lead falls was enough to cause the cam to pull apart.
The "tensile tested" failure is one guy (who sounds like he has his own ax to grind with CCH), was able to pull a cam apart at what he claims was 1100 lbs. Which, without cofirmation/replication by some other independent testers, it is hard to have too much faith in the accuracy of this report and whether or not this cam really would have failed under the loads that actual falls generate.
I would certainly by happy, though, to see CCH sell out to a large, mainstream company. For Yosemite granite, I sure prefer them to any other small cam I have tried.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 5, 2007, 10:37 PM
Post #32 of 59
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
sspssp wrote: The "tensile tested" failure is one guy (who sounds like he has his own ax to grind with CCH), was able to pull a cam apart at what he claims was 1100 lbs. Which, without cofirmation/replication by some other independent testers, it is hard to have too much faith in the accuracy of this report and whether or not this cam really would have failed under the loads that actual falls generate.
If you mean Russ from Fish Products then, as far as I'm concerned, nothing more need be known about it other than as an independent tester he said they failed and failed miserably. And if he has an axe to grind it's probably that someone this out of control is still in the climbing gear business tainting everyone en masse.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Aug 5, 2007, 10:46 PM
Post #33 of 59
(3913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
shimanilami wrote: They are, hands down, the best designed cams in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Aug 5, 2007, 10:51 PM
Post #34 of 59
(3912 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
sspssp wrote: Yes, I would say that is another red flag. However, the cams that failed in lead falls concern me much more. In those cases, whatever sort of forces are actually generated by lead falls was enough to cause the cam to pull apart.
The lead fall scenarios above were all very short falls which would not have generated even close to what should be required to dismantle one of those cams. What would be more accurate to point to as concerning would be the fact that if those cams were breaking because of very high forces, the failure mode would be completely different.
sspssp wrote: The "tensile tested" failure is one guy (who sounds like he has his own ax to grind with CCH), was able to pull a cam apart at what he claims was 1100 lbs. Which, without cofirmation/replication by some other independent testers, it is hard to have too much faith in the accuracy of this report and whether or not this cam really would have failed under the loads that actual falls generate...
Why oh why oh why anyone would continue to give CCH the bennefit of the doubt after so many well documented cases is beyond me. After all, those who've taken it upon themselves to preform services for the climbing community (like Russ Walling has) would be much more deserving of skeptecism.
C'mon now.
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Aug 6, 2007, 4:11 PM
Post #36 of 59
(3796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
CCH knowingly and willfully violated the trust of the climbing community. If you're on this forum, that means your community. When we as a community are uneccesarily endangered, then lied too about it, it goes beyond business, and gets personal. I'm not a vindictive person by nature, but I hope they are put out of business fast. Karma, baby. It can be a real bitch.
And this from a formally ardent aliens fan...
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 6, 2007, 4:15 PM
Post #37 of 59
(3790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
medicus wrote: shimanilami wrote: They are, hands down, the best designed cams in the world. IYHO?
What's better?
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 6, 2007, 4:30 PM
Post #38 of 59
(3768 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
dynosore wrote: In reply to: I am a big proponent of LEAN and Six Sigma practices. No offense to QC, but it is my goal to eliminate the need for having you guys around. (You're overhead, frankly.) And with a manufacturing process as simple as the one at CCH, it shouldn't be too hard to do. Did you learn your QC methodology off the back of a cereal box!?! Gee, our process works today, and we're "certified" so lets not monitor it anymore since nothing unforseen could change and cause us to start making a defective product  I've heard some stupid things out of the mouths of sick sigma devotees, but this takes the cake. I pray I never need the medical device you produce 
I hope you never need any of my company's products, either. But the odds are such that you probably will. (In fact, the odds are such that someone you know already has.)
When I said it is my goal to eliminate the need for having QC around, I meant exactly what I said. From a business perspective, that money is much better spent on positions that grow the top line (e.g. R&D) or improve the bottom line (e.g. automation in manufacturing).
That said, it is virtually impossible to eliminate QC entirely, especially in an industry such as mine. But trust me, we're trying.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 6, 2007, 4:32 PM
Post #39 of 59
(3763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
stymingersfink wrote: shimanilami wrote: It seems we all basically agree that the design of CCH Aliens is sound. no, not really. there is obviously an issue with the brazing process such that it cannot be performed by a trained monkey, therefore should not be attempted by an assembler in C highna. Or Wyoming. find another way to attach the cable to the head which CAN be performed by a trained monkey and you might have a new patent, but I doubt THAT's gonna happen.
I'll give you that. "Design for manufacturability" is a concept CCH clearly hasn't grasped yet.
(This post was edited by shimanilami on Aug 6, 2007, 4:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 6, 2007, 5:14 PM
Post #40 of 59
(3724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
shimanilami wrote: dynosore wrote: In reply to: I am a big proponent of LEAN and Six Sigma practices. No offense to QC, but it is my goal to eliminate the need for having you guys around. (You're overhead, frankly.) And with a manufacturing process as simple as the one at CCH, it shouldn't be too hard to do. Did you learn your QC methodology off the back of a cereal box!?! Gee, our process works today, and we're "certified" so lets not monitor it anymore since nothing unforseen could change and cause us to start making a defective product I've heard some stupid things out of the mouths of sick sigma devotees, but this takes the cake. I pray I never need the medical device you produce I hope you never need any of my company's products, either. But the odds are such that you probably will. (In fact, the odds are such that someone you know already has.) When I said it is my goal to eliminate the need for having QC around, I meant exactly what I said. From a business perspective, that money is much better spent on positions that grow the top line (e.g. R&D) or improve the bottom line (e.g. automation in manufacturing). That said, it is virtually impossible to eliminate QC entirely, especially in an industry such as mine. But trust me, we're trying.
I seems to me that it is people with attitudes like yours that make the FDA necessary.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 6, 2007, 5:27 PM
Post #41 of 59
(3712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
jt512 wrote: I seems to me that it is people with attitudes like yours that make the FDA necessary. Jay
Touche!
But I will point out that there is no FDA in the European Community and they seem to get along just fine policing themselves.
I will submit that the FDA is the ultimate "QC Department", filled with people with little understanding of the basic technical, business, or manufacturing principles associated with the products they regulate. The 'clearances' they provide are often rubber stamps that shield the corporations just as much as they protect US consumers.
But, yeah, I hate the FDA. Give me ISO, instead.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 6, 2007, 5:53 PM
Post #42 of 59
(3680 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
As much as I love playing devil's advocate (and in defending CCH, I get to do so in more ways than one!), this thread is giving me a headache. I'm trying to goof off at work, but instead I'm bringing my work to RC.com.
No fun. I'm out.
|
|
|
|
|
russwalling
Aug 6, 2007, 8:29 PM
Post #43 of 59
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2002
Posts: 239
|
In reply to: The "tensile tested" failure is one guy (who sounds like he has his own ax to grind with CCH), was able to pull a cam apart at what he claims was 1100 lbs. Which, without cofirmation/replication by some other independent testers, it is hard to have too much faith in the accuracy of this report and whether or not this cam really would have failed under the loads that actual falls generate.
The above is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.... even on the internet.
I have been in contact with the "tensile tested" failure guy. He has no axe to grind and has a background in materials testing. His testing set up is top notch and his results are verifiable and accurate.
As for the loads that climbing falls generate and whether the tested/failed cam would have held such falls..... use your bean man! The cam failed at 1100 lbs. I have had Alien failures from 150lbs to 900lbs. What sort of fall does it take to generate a 150lb load? 900lb? 1100lbs? It ain't much, and to suggest that a cam is good in the real world when these lab style failures are occurring is just idiotic. Look at the math a bit more and then wise up a bunch. CCH cams are a potential timebomb, and someone will die eventually if this failure rate continues.
(This post was edited by russwalling on Aug 6, 2007, 8:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Aug 6, 2007, 8:52 PM
Post #44 of 59
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
russwalling wrote: In reply to: The "tensile tested" failure is one guy (who sounds like he has his own ax to grind with CCH), was able to pull a cam apart at what he claims was 1100 lbs. Which, without cofirmation/replication by some other independent testers, it is hard to have too much faith in the accuracy of this report and whether or not this cam really would have failed under the loads that actual falls generate. The above is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.... even on the internet. I have been in contact with the "tensile tested" failure guy. He has no axe to grind and has a background in materials testing. His testing set up is top notch and his results are verifiable and accurate. As for the loads that climbing falls generate and whether the tested/failed cam would have held such falls..... use your bean man! The cam failed at 1100 lbs. I have had Alien failures from 150lbs to 900lbs. What sort of fall does it take to generate a 150lb load? 900lb? 1100lbs? It ain't much, and to suggest that a cam is good in the real world when these lab style failures are occurring is just idiotic. Look at the math a bit more and then wise up a bunch. CCH cams are a potential timebomb, and someone will die eventually if this failure rate continues.
Perhaps I should have said it differently than ax to grind. From the supertopo link the guy who did the testing said:
"I even tried to buy the company because the design concept is fantastic, but you cannot have cams failing"
So if he was spurned in his attempt I thought he might have a reason to be unhappy with CCH.
But regardless...
What is so dumb about my statement? If I said that I tested an Alien and it failed at 90lbs would you automatically believe me? Of course not. I'm just some dumb dude on the internet spouting off.
It is not that I think 1100 pounds is a safe level. It is that the cams that failed in the field obviously failed at an unsafe level. All the "failures" in the lab are based on "some guy on the internet" reporting something. Now if you personally know him, sure you attitude is going to be different (just like my test/report would be different for people that know me: either as honest guy or as a troll). Or if the report is on a reputable company page etc.
Why would I give CCH any benefit of the doubt? Well, I would think that CCH would have some desire to avoid bankruptcy. They obviously have had a lot of troubles that they didn't deal with in an appropriate manner. However, I didn't think it would be that hard for them to actually do a pull test on every new alien that left the shop. That is why I was so focused/concerned about the "tensile tested" failure versus any of the cams that failed before they [allegedly] started doing test. And obviously I like climbing on them. If so many climbers didn't really like them, CCH would have gone under a long time ago...
|
|
|
|
|
russwalling
Aug 6, 2007, 9:04 PM
Post #45 of 59
(3603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2002
Posts: 239
|
In reply to: What is so dumb about my statement? If I said that I tested an Alien and it failed at 90lbs would you automatically believe me? Of course not. I'm just some dumb dude on the internet spouting off.
RE: the failed cam: If your 90lb cam was presented as his failed cam was, with a picture of a dynamometer, a picture of the failed cams, and other data from the testing, yes I would believe you. Sure, he could be trolling and there could be monsters under the bed and all that, but in this case, not believing him would seem to be more of a troll.
And that stuff about the failed during testing cam maybe holding actual falls in the field..... well, there is no way to make that part of the statement sound intelligent. (unless you really have no idea just how much force actual falls generate)
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Aug 6, 2007, 10:03 PM
Post #46 of 59
(3561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
shimanilami wrote: If CCH farmed out production to an outside party - BD or Metolius, for example - would this eliminate your quality concerns? Would you buy "made by BD/Metolius" Aliens?
I was in a Laramie gear shop recently and the owner mentioned that CCH started having problems when they farmed out work to a third party(ies). I have no idea if this is true or not, or where the involved parties may have been located if this is actually the case.
I followed the Alien discussions for the most part, but it's been a while and I don't remember if anyone confirmed or disspelled this rumor...forgive me if I'm posting useless or already-discussed information.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 6, 2007, 10:10 PM
Post #47 of 59
(3547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
The Dimpled cams were brazed by a third party and they marked at least some of them with a dimple. I believe since the recall they are supposed to be doing it all in house again.. but who knows anymore
|
|
|
|
|
wb3
Aug 6, 2007, 10:17 PM
Post #48 of 59
(3534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2006
Posts: 11
|
OK, so many folks seem to feel that the old ones they have are OK, but don't buy new ones. I've got a rack full of Aiens in smaller sizes. All produced in '05. I've sent them back and had them pull tested. Now let's suppose CCH's testing procedure is not entirely trustworthy. What to do next? I too love the way they work but want to be confident they're OK. Are there any commercial services to which one can send cams and have them independently tested? And will that suffice, assuming there is not a design flaw at issue?
(This post was edited by wb3 on Aug 8, 2007, 11:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 6, 2007, 10:20 PM
Post #49 of 59
(3528 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
cfnubbler wrote: CCH knowingly and willfully violated the trust of the climbing community. If you're on this forum, that means your community. When we as a community are uneccesarily endangered, then lied too about it, it goes beyond business, and gets personal. I'm not a vindictive person by nature, but I hope they are put out of business fast. Karma, baby. It can be a real bitch. And this from a formally ardent aliens fan...
yup, what he said.
Shimichanga, BTW, its not about you, OR about QC, or about Lean, 3 Sigma or 6 Sigma, 110 or 220 volts.
At this point, I suspect that if CCH even put a scholastically struggling mentally challenged 4th grader in charge of quality it would be a big improvement over whatever the hell they are (NOT) currently doing.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 6, 2007, 10:48 PM
Post #50 of 59
(3505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
In a couple more days, we'll see what Metolius has up its sleeves, and maybe then all of this will be moot. Let's hope it's not another C3-like disappointment.
"Aliens by Metolius, but with machined cam stops" would be bad-ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
