|
pwscottiv
Dec 18, 2007, 10:18 AM
Post #101 of 388
(26178 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Posts: 157
|
michaellane wrote: ...determine the cause of the failure. Hmmm, seems pretty obvious to me... Either you're leaving the material to hard after heat treating them and/or the PIM process was just a bad idea for this application (as it ALWAYS introduces a percentage of porosity into the final product). For the cam lobes themselves, I would say anything harder than H1100 is probably a big mistake for this application. To minimize galling it would *probably* be OK to leave the pins up at H950, considering their size/shape. Anyways, I really be interested in finding out how hard those parts of the cam really were in the failed units... If anyone has a broken one, I have access to hardness testers and would love to check it out.
|
|
|
|
|
pwscottiv
Dec 18, 2007, 10:38 AM
Post #102 of 388
(26178 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Posts: 157
|
holdplease2 wrote: The way that we treat OPacific in this situation will be one of the drivers of whether or not Other companies are willing to take the risk of making innovative designs, testing them the best they can, and bringing them to market.
Using a potentially brittle material like PIM 17-4 is a risky move unless extensive testing is done, including regular hardness and destructive testing. I can attest to this personally, having worked with it myself quite extensively in the biomedical field for several years.
|
|
|
|
|
pwscottiv
Dec 18, 2007, 10:50 AM
Post #103 of 388
(26178 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Posts: 157
|
healyje wrote: ISO, CE, UIAA are all about minimums, ideals, quality processes, engineering test beds, and guidance - not the word of God. They also relate more to the manufacture, rather than design application, when it comes to protection. And ' Relying on the expertise of others' in climbing has been and likely always will be a perilous affair regardless of how it's packaged, sold, and marketed.
Totally... And with products that stray far from the rest of the market it can be easy for testing/validation methods to go right out the window. For example, ISO 9001 standards are primarily written by the company itself (and could nearly include that the inspector is able to smoke crack right before his shift). The biggest problem with stuff like this almost always can be attributed to the marketing department dominating the engineering/testing department. That crap was even happening at a bio-med firm I was working for... The VP of marketing was always trying to get us to bypass safety over common sense. He could give a shit if some guy died or was injured, just as long as he sold more of our product.
|
|
|
|
|
michaellane
Dec 18, 2007, 4:20 PM
Post #104 of 388
(26132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2004
Posts: 89
|
Hi, Everyone ...
Our final report is complete and I'll be emailing it to dirtme this morning. We'll address any questions he has and will then post our analysis and conclusion on this forum.
As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 800.360.3990 or email at info@omegapac.com to my attention. Sending PMs through this site is the slowest way to get hold of me ... I'd recommend an email instead.
Thanks.
--ML
____________________
Michael Lane
Omega Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Dec 18, 2007, 4:37 PM
Post #105 of 388
(26119 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
healyje wrote: Hmmm, let me get this straight - so there are a lot of you, if not a majority of you - who look at this cam and see what? A better-than-normal, do-it-all cam? You look at those links and they look fine and robust? Are you saying you really think it takes an engineer or rocket scientist to figure out there might be limitations to the design?
I don't think it takes an engineer or rocket scientist to freely opine that this cam might (and I say, might) have limitations. I *do* think it was impossible for the average climber, including very experienced climbers to know just what those limitations might be.
You imply those links weren't fine and robust just from looking at them, right? OP would beg to differ, I think, from the results of their testing. My opinion is that yes there are limitations, but they were neither easy to see, and even harder to precisely state prior to this incident.
I take your point about something being lost in the generational change from mentored climbers to social/internet/other climbers, but I don't think that necessarily applies here.
healyje wrote: I don't know, maybe I've just broken enough stuff so that it all seems pretty obvious to me.
Maybe.
Now that OP has finished testing, I'm eager to hear the official analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
michaellane
Dec 18, 2007, 4:40 PM
Post #106 of 388
(26117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2004
Posts: 89
|
pwscottiv wrote: healyje wrote: ISO, CE, UIAA are all about minimums, ideals, quality processes, engineering test beds, and guidance - not the word of God. Totally... <snip> ... the biggest problem with stuff like this almost always can be attributed to the marketing department dominating the engineering/testing department. That crap was even happening at a bio-med firm I was working for... The VP of marketing was always trying to get us to bypass safety over common sense. He could give a shit if some guy died or was injured, just as long as he sold more of our product.
pwscottiv ...
I promise you that doesn't happen here and had absolutely nothing to do with dirtme's cam.
Your comment could be read to suggest that we are cavalier about climbers' safety and, if so, you couldn't possibly be more incorrect.
Many of us are climbers here in this company, so there's a very personal stake in the gear for us. But from a practical perspective, why would we shortcut safety if we know that it could result in a negligent injury or death that could end our company?
--ML
___________________
Michael Lane
Omega Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
pwscottiv
Dec 19, 2007, 10:34 AM
Post #107 of 388
(25742 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Posts: 157
|
michaellane wrote: why would we shortcut safety if we know that it could result in a negligent injury or death that could end our company?
It wouldn't be anything more than a judgment based on previous experience in the product development world and seeing pictures with brittle fracture characteristics on your product. I think we both know that those breaks shouldn't look like that considering the application (although you might not have had much of a choice considering the geometry). I know it sucks to leave the stainless parts soft, because they would bend somewhat easily, thereby making the mechanism jam on subsequent uses, but that goes back to the basic design possibly being fundamentally flawed. Honestly, that thing looks scary to me... Not necessarily in all applications with all users, as I think someone who was instructed on its limitations could still use it in a safe manner. I haven't personally read your instructions for this product, but from the response of your customers who own these, they didn't see crap about any sort of limitations... I seriously doubt that your engineering team didn't have the foresight to see the limitations that are being experienced in the field. Anyone who was intelligent enough to develop a cam as complicated as yours could not have been that ignorant. So, although it's just speculation, I would guess that there was some sort of pressure from your marketing/management departments to not talk about "limitations", as it might scare potential customers away... Do you see my point?
|
|
|
|
|
rightarmbad
Dec 19, 2007, 11:31 AM
Post #108 of 388
(25730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 218
|
pwscottiv Do you really have the exact knowledge of the cams construction to comment on it's metalurgy just by looking at it?
How about you list the various components and their makeup as you see it and then let OP reply and see how close you are.
While you are there you may as well comment on any heat treatment or other processing that has taken place as well as the testing process and computer analysys.
May as well go so far as to suggest further testing that may reveal their fatal floors for all to see.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 19, 2007, 12:18 PM
Post #109 of 388
(25719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
nivlac wrote: I don't think it takes an engineer or rocket scientist to freely opine that this cam might (and I say, might) have limitations. I *do* think it was impossible for the average climber, including very experienced climbers to know just what those limitations might be.
If that's true, then like I said the skill and craft of 'average' climbers has taken a savage nosedive over the past couple of decades. We'll just have to disagree - I believe the limitations should be, again, completely transparent and obvious to anyone claiming a reasonable level of craft with protection.
nivlac wrote: You imply those links weren't fine and robust just from looking at them, right? OP would beg to differ.
What OP thinks, while pertinent in many respects, is wholly irrelevant to the ability and personal responsibility of climbers to evaluate the applicability of gear in any given application they are considering. I mean, do these really look 'robust' to you?
nivlac wrote: I think, from the results of their testing. My opinion is that yes there are limitations, but they were neither easy to see, and even harder to precisely state prior to this incident.
While difficult to specifically list, those limitations are, however, quite easy to generalize:
a) Any application, placement, or circumstance which would put any amount of lateral (sideways) pressure on the segmented cam lobe linkages should be avoided at all cost.
b) The robust, solid stem should always be both [statically] aimed in the direction of the anticipated load and never rest across an obstruction due to its ability to leverage significant torsional loads onto the segmented cam lobe linkages.
Both of these limitations *are* patently, if not painfully, obvious in a glance.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 19, 2007, 12:47 PM
Post #110 of 388
(25708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
pwscottiv wrote: I think peoples' safety is MUCH more important than expanding climbing technology. I think it's good to remind all the gear manufactures that it's their responsibility to properly test equipment BEFORE it gets out in the field... We aren't talking about dolls that have a difficult time retaining their heads, in turn making some kid cry... We're talking life and death. Climbers are NOT guinea pigs.
pwscottiv, I think we agree on a lot of points in this discussion, but here I think we part company. If safety were the ultimate goal, no one would be in the business at all. Willing 'guinea pigs' is what we've essentially been all along, most of you are just too young to realize it. Some incredibly bad gear has gone by over the decades - ironically, most of it well-made and robust, just poorly suited for the purpose of protection. There would never be innovation in climbing if designs had to be vetted as fool-proof for today's 'average' climber as described by some in this thread.
Manufacturers have a responsibility to produce the best possible products they can, but history is replete with dead-ends and products which need significant expertise to wield appropriately. And no, I'm not implying the Link Cams are a dead-end product, but rather one that requires some expertise to wield effectively and safely. In general, I think OP is doing a good job relative to the introduction and service of Link Cams. If the limitations have not been well-stated by them, I'm more than willing to chalk it up to a bunch of highly experienced folks who on one hand were excited about the pure potential of the design on one hand, and intuitively avoided such placements when field-testing them on the other.
It may turn out the liability costs of the general population of climbers using these is just too high in the long run for them to stay on the market, but I'll consider that a loss to a few due to the folly or inexperience of the many. Again, it must be a generational phenomena that simply because gear is sold commercially it somehow means climbers are in some way mysteriously absolved of their own responsibility and imperative in judging the fitness of the gear they use.
(This post was edited by healyje on Dec 19, 2007, 1:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Dec 19, 2007, 1:54 PM
Post #111 of 388
(25680 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
So Healy.How many broken Link Cams vs.How many in use? And how many broken Aliens vs. # in use?
Just roughly will do.
You are granting grace for cutting edge technology to OP. Do they work anywhere a C4 won't?
Do Aliens still place better than any current Metolious or BD model on the market,including the C3?
How did you decide the one in question we are all still waiting to hear about was placed inappropriately?I've been climbing a while and the pod in the picture looked Ok to me.
(This post was edited by tomcat on Dec 19, 2007, 1:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Dec 19, 2007, 2:45 PM
Post #112 of 388
(25658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
healyje wrote: nivlac wrote: You imply those links weren't fine and robust just from looking at them, right? OP would beg to differ. What OP thinks, while pertinent in many respects, is wholly irrelevant to the ability and personal responsibility of climbers to evaluate the applicability of gear in any given application they are considering. I mean, do these really look 'robust' to you?
Sorry then, I am bringing down the average skill/craft of climbers (I've suspected as much for a while now). To me, the links look similar to the pin connecting the sling on my tricams. I've never heard of one of those failing. Though the amount of material around the pin on the link cams is smaller, my naive view was that it is a newer product, with a newer design and materials and/or manufacturing process. I didn't think too much about it until now, but I guess would have assumed all the engineers/specialists involved in its design and testing would know better.
Another factor compounding my ignorance is that I've never broken a piece of gear and really have no concept of what it would take. Though I understand the physics of the increased sideways force on the links, I have no grasp of what those forces really could be in practice, and what the metal really could handle.
But I still don't buy that everyone should have known from their unveiling that these could "easily" be broken. Maybe I need to look at gear more suspiciously - I started to after the Alien debacle. Soon I suppose I'll be too terrified to leave the ground on gear anymore. And I was already terrified of 5.6s at the Gunks...
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Dec 19, 2007, 3:37 PM
Post #113 of 388
(25628 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
healyje wrote: If that's true, then like I said the skill and craft of 'average' climbers has taken a savage nosedive over the past couple of decades. We'll just have to disagree - I believe the limitations should be, again, completely transparent and obvious to anyone claiming a reasonable level of craft with protection. nivlac wrote: You imply those links weren't fine and robust just from looking at them, right? OP would beg to differ. What OP thinks, while pertinent in many respects, is wholly irrelevant to the ability and personal responsibility of climbers to evaluate the applicability of gear in any given application they are considering. I mean, do these really look 'robust' to you? [image]http://www.omegapac.com/media/image002.jpg[/image]
Why do you keep pointing to a picture of the linkage point of the lobes? The fracture point occurred higher up, at a solid point in the metal.
Solid metal then, does not look robust to you? OP's opinion, while not a substitute for common sense and judgment, is the basis from which any climber must start. Your point about how these links "look" is disingenuous - you imply an obvious flaw by pointing to the links when the break occurred in a solid part higher up, not at the linkage point.
healyje wrote: While difficult to specifically list, those limitations are, however, quite easy to generalize: a) Any application, placement, or circumstance which would put any amount of lateral (sideways) pressure on the segmented cam lobe linkages should be avoided at all cost.
b) The robust, solid stem should always be both [statically] aimed in the direction of the anticipated load and never rest across an obstruction due to its ability to leverage significant torsional loads onto the segmented cam lobe linkages. Both of these limitations *are* patently, if not painfully, obvious in a glance.
In both cases, you cite a general rule about the segmented cam lobe linkages. Again, the break didn't occur at the segmented portion of the cam.
Have you used these cams? Normally, I defer to those who are my elder in years and experience, for the obvious reasons, but your posts smack of arrogant opining from afar, with little to no knowledge of the actual circumstances.
I want to join the general consensus that OP has done a good job of responding and like everyone else I eagerly await the report. I've had some good discussions and heard some OP analysis second-hand, but the actual report should be very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Dec 19, 2007, 3:48 PM
Post #114 of 388
(25613 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
to OP: please to be posting findings now, kthxbai!!1
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Dec 19, 2007, 3:48 PM
Post #115 of 388
(25612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
pwscottiv wrote: So, although it's just speculation, I would guess that there was some sort of pressure from your marketing/management departments to not talk about "limitations", as it might scare potential customers away... Do you see my point?
Your guess is so far off base it's laughable. The person you are talking to IS the marketing and management department. And he's been in the climbing business for probably two decades now. Greg Lowe isn't exactly a newbie designer either.
Healyje's suppositions are pretty far over the top too. I'd certainly rank the OP cams as superior to many previous cams on the market (such as U-stem Camalots, early Tech Friends, and Wired Bliss cams) that are still on the racks of a lot of climbers. Other wide-range cams (Metolius and Trango) have their own issues. At present, you haven't presented anything credible to back up your theories.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 19, 2007, 3:49 PM
Post #116 of 388
(25612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
tomcat wrote: So Healy.How many broken Link Cams vs.How many in use? And how many broken Aliens vs. # in use? Just roughly will do. You are granting grace for cutting edge technology to OP.
Already answered this upthread - it's boils down to the difference in costs of innovation and incompetence. In my book the former is bearable, the latter is not.
tomcat wrote: Do they work anywhere a C4 won't Do Aliens still place better than any current Metolious or BD model on the market,including the C3?
Do they work where two or three C4's work should be your first question. As someone who owns two sets of Alien hybrids, there are only a very few placements where they work better than other available options - that's why I just own the hybrids. Outside of those specialty placements I'd take a Metolius or BD over an Alien any day of the week - and that was pre-recall.
tomcat wrote: How did you decide the one in question we are all still waiting to hear about was placed inappropriately?I've been climbing a while and the pod in the picture looked Ok to me.
I took one, quick look at it. The stem is both over an edge and not in-line with the the direction of the force of a fall.
(This post was edited by healyje on Dec 19, 2007, 11:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
michaellane
Dec 19, 2007, 3:52 PM
Post #117 of 388
(25605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2004
Posts: 89
|
Howdy, Everyone …
I’ve been in touch with Dirtme, provided him a copy of our report and can share the following summary. As always, should you have any questions, I am more than happy to discuss them with you. You can contact me at the office: 800.360.3990 or by email to my attention at info@omegapac.com. I don’t recommend you rely on PM through rc.com as it could be a while before I respond.
Based on our interview with Dirtme, his excellent photos of the event and examination of the returned cam, we are pretty confident in the following …
The cam was built to specifications. All materials tests were within tolerances, it was properly assembled and no defects in materials or construction were detected.
By matching the obviously recent marks and scrapes on the cam to the photos of its last placement prior to taking Dirtme’s fall, we’ve been able to recreate the incident.
The feature the cam protected was a shallow, flaring pin-scar-like feature that was bottoming and pinched off at the bottom. Dirtme did the best he could to get the cam oriented in the direction of potential load, but the feature didn’t appropriately provide for that. As the photos show, the cam was inserted into the feature approximately 30 degrees or so off plumb.
When Dirtme took his fall, only a few feet above the piece—and without a lot of rope in play, making for quite a severe force—the cam loaded and the stem oriented downward into direction of the load, naturally. The head of the cam, though, was still at an angle in the feature. When the stem began to load the head, the cam, of course, try to shift into a position perpendicular to the stem, as is normal.
The feature would not permit the cam to orient properly, though, and caused it to fail.
Since the feature was bottoming and the cam head was reasonably snug up into the back end of the feature, there was no room for the cam to shift and orient itself in the direction of the load. The bottom of the feature was pinched and further prevented the cam from properly orienting itself.
The top of the feature flares outward and the force of the fall caused the upper two lobe assemblies to rip free from their placement as evidenced by the fresh marks on those two lobes. This led to the remaining, bottom two lobes absorbing the entire force.
Two factors, at this point, led to equipment failure.
Based on the obvious marks on those two lobes, we can determine that the inboard lobe was loaded at approximately the 40% point of the overall range and that the outboard lobe, the one that broke, was at about 70%. This imbalance between the two lobes contributed to a very instable piece of protection as it wanted to flip out of place.
Meanwhile, the cam continued to try to orient into direction of load, but the pinched-off feature put substantial and increasing leverage, laterally onto the lobe assembly until it finally broke at the hinge between the first and second links.
After testing the strength of other brands’ lobes against our lobe assemblies, we are confident that perhaps any other cam of similar size would have ripped from its placement and maybe even been damaged. Impossible to say for sure, of course, and we’ll continue to investigate with more testing, both in the lab and in the field, but the forced involved and the odd loading of that cam is tough for any piece of gear to tolerate. We’re building several new test fixtures to try to approximate some of the unpredictable and odd loading that can go on at the crags.
As well, we’re also going to look into ways to increase the strength and durability of the links and their hinges so as to provide increased margin of safety.
Finally, we will reinforce our instructions & other literature on the importance of placement with particular emphasis on the following two points:
1) Always place cams so that the head of the cam is perpendicular to the stem during a fall. It’s not always enough to know that you’ve got a flexible stem that will orient in the direction of a fall. That stem is placing a lot of force on the head of the unit and that force can compromise your placement or damage the equipment. That’s good advice no matter what kind of cam you’re using.
2) Be sure to place cams so that, if they do shift during loading, they will not come into contact with edges, nubbins or other features that can put side-loads on the cam lobes. This is a good idea for all cams, too, but perhaps most relevant when placing Link Cams due to the fact that so much more leverage can be applied to the lobe assemblies when they’re unfolded than with other cam designs.
That’s the summary. As I said … I invite you to call or email me if you have any questions.
I want to thank Dirtme for his cooperation and understanding in this and, again, say how glad we all are that he’s not injured.
Regards to all … have a great (and safe) holiday season.
--ML
____________________
Michael Lane
Omega Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
michaellane
Dec 19, 2007, 3:59 PM
Post #118 of 388
(25594 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2004
Posts: 89
|
healyje wrote: b) The robust, solid stem should always be ...
Just for accuracy, the Link Cam stem is flexible steel cable, not solid.
--ML
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 19, 2007, 4:04 PM
Post #119 of 388
(25582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: Healyje's suppositions are pretty far over the top too.
My 'suppositions' are in pretty plain language so should be easy to say exactly how they are over the top?
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: I'd certainly rank the OP cams as superior to many previous cams on the market (such as U-stem Camalots, early Tech Friends, and Wired Bliss cams) that are still on the racks of a lot of climbers.
I'd agree with most of that - early Camalots were basically a disaster. Not particularly familiar with the track record of early Tech Friends (didn't like them) or early Wired Bliss cams (didn't use them). I did blow up a few original Friends, though.
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: Other wide-range cams (Metolius and Trango) have their own issues. At present, you haven't presented anything credible to back up your theories.
Trango Max Cams do have some similar issues relative to limitations of an innovative design which radically departs from the norm and the need for some careful thought and practice relative to their use.
The Metolius Super Cam has no issues whatsoever that I'm aware of - and other than the asymmetrical size and rotation of the respective cam lobes - the operable physics of their mechanics is indistiquishably from an original Friend relative to its single axle design and identical, matched cam angles. Pray tell, if you know of an issue with them I'd love to hear it.
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Dec 19, 2007, 4:09 PM
Post #120 of 388
(25569 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
Healyje,
Good comments to my post (and overall) I agree about your point that self-evaluation of gear is the principal way to stay healthy, but climbing gear is...well, climbing gear. It's designed to to take good levels of stress. I haven't seen things break yet in my career, and while it obviously happens, in this case it turned my head a bit. No gear is indestructable, but this seems a little fragile to me:
The fall described would cause a 150 lb climber to put 4.8 kn of force on the piece. LCs are rated to 14kn (yes, in a textbook placement, which this was not). It's hard to judge via pics, but it looked like a solid placement overall aside from the stem not being perfectly aligned in the direction of pull, which, yes, is significant. However, it is likely that it was the best placement one could get in this situation. I'm betting a regular cam would have ripped under load before breaking, and would have probably held this fall. So use another cam, you say? Fair enough.
Now, I can definately see how breakage is more of a possibility with this cam than traditional designs. However, given the relatively small angle of torqe in the system, the fact that the cam broke at the same stress level as some micronuts when placed slightly off kilter warrents a few raised eyebrows, imo. That's all I'm saying. If the design is that touchy, so be it, but I think the degree to which is it sensitive to placement is not as readiliy obvious as the fact that it is sensitive to placement. Make sense?
Given the fall, I would have also expected this cam to hold, or at least to pull under torque, but not to break. Rightly or wrongly, I guess.
As a sidenote, it has been mentioned in this thread, but material integrity may be in question here. Perhaps the link cam is still viable at this level of torque, although it is definately something to watch out for. It would be interesting to see if another link cam would hold this fall.
So...who wants to try it?
Cheers,
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Dec 19, 2007, 4:19 PM
Post #121 of 388
(25560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
Thanks for the detailed report Michael, it clears up a few questions I had.
Best,
Matt
(This post was edited by wanderlustmd on Dec 19, 2007, 4:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dreday3000
Dec 19, 2007, 4:28 PM
Post #122 of 388
(25538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: 566
|
Bottom line? I ain't gonna buy linked cams no more.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 19, 2007, 4:30 PM
Post #123 of 388
(25536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
michaellane wrote: ...put substantial and increasing leverage, laterally onto the lobe assembly until it finally broke at the hinge between the first and second links.
This being the key elemet of the analysis from my perspective - that, and that there was no materials flaw.
michaellane wrote: After testing the strength of other brands’ lobes against our lobe assemblies, we are confident that perhaps any other cam of similar size would have ripped from its placement and maybe even been damaged.
I have no doubt most any other cam would have ripped under that analysis, and while I might believe a Camalot might break under those circumstances, and that any make of cam would have ripped - I doubt a [good] Alien or a Metolius would have been damaged. Impossible to know as you say, but you'd have a hard time convincing me of that one.
Sorry on the "solid" comments - should have said 'relatively stiff'. And believe me, I'm both a big fan of Greg's work over the years; think your work/manufacturing ethics and response to this matter have been superlative; and do want you to succeed with this product.
The biggest risks I see to that are principally materials limitations relative to the design and the need for you folks to better get across when it's appropriate to use these babies. Kudos for making them, I'd just hate to see them end up off the market because folks are misusing them.
|
|
|
|
|
michaellane
Dec 19, 2007, 4:37 PM
Post #124 of 388
(25524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2004
Posts: 89
|
In reply to: pwscottiv: So, although it's just speculation, I would guess that there was some sort of pressure from your marketing/management departments to not talk about "limitations", as it might scare potential customers away... Do you see my point?
No, I don't. You're making a huge assumption that is completely inaccurate.
Regardless of your experience in other industries, at this company, we believe in doing everything possible to a) build great products and b) make sure people use them safely.
That includes being honest with our customers.
Every design in the world is a compromise: you give something up to get some other benefit. Link Cams are no exception.
The range is a huge benefit in many situations. But the cams are heavier than most and the links can present challenges that must be considered when placing them or they could become damaged. Every dealer and climber we've ever talked to can tell you that we've been clear about that since we introduced Link Cams.
As Roy Hinkley pointed out, the sales and marketing departments are my departments so whatever influence and direction that comes from this side of the building comes directly from me and I'm telling you straight: what you suggest happened ... didn't happen.
--ML
____________________
Michael Lane
Omega Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Dec 19, 2007, 4:37 PM
Post #125 of 388
(25522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
I looked Healy.You did not answer my questions.
From what I gather from OP,Link Cams have a flexible stem that is not meant to be bent over anything as that loads the cam in a way that it explodes. That's quite an innovation.
So,how many failed Aliens vs. # in use? How many failed Link Cams vs.# in use?
Link Cams don't appear to place anywhere C4's or other leading cams do.In theory they are more versatile,but that theory comes apart pretty quickly if they fail in the type of application cited here.WTF good are they if they have to be pointed down to work?
So I will throw this out Healy.I'll venture there are ten times as many Aliens in use over a twenty year period as there are Link Cams in two.And there have been more than just this one that blew up.So if three or four Link Cam failures in two years vs what 10 or 12 Alien heads in twenty,which one has the better track record?Don't forget the number in use.
Were Aliens ever cutting edge technology?
The placement shown is a pretty straightforward C4 in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
