|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 10:28 AM
Post #1 of 713
(16029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
First, a couple of ground rules:
- This is The Lab and this thread will be highly moderated, as is customary for The Lab.
- The purpose of this post is to keep you informed and safe, not to bash CCH. What happened with threads here on RC during the dimpled head recall did not do anyone any good and served only to bury important information under pages and pages of ugliness.
- Posts/threads of an unhelpful nature either here in The Lab or elsewhere on RC will be removed as this is a major safety issue and correct information needs to be kept accessible.
- These tests were performed by me, witnessed by at least a dozen people and most likely the failed remains were seen by most everyone in attendance at the New River Rendezvous, as I had a display of broken gear set out for people to look at and these were added to it immediately after testing.
- Details on my testing rig are available elsewhere here on RC and in the interest of brevity have been omitted from this already overly long report. These details have been sent to CCH along with everything else.
With that out of the way, as you may know I took my pull tester along down to the New River Rendezvous over the weekend to do some fundraising for NRAC by way breaking things in exchange for donations. Among the things I broke were a pair of Aliens- a Red that was found by Tigerlilly a while back and a Purple that I bought off a guy on MountainProject a couple months ago when he was thinning his rack a bit.
Both of them failed well below their rated strengths.
If you have Aliens that have not been proof tested, please, PLEASE stop climbing on them until you can get them tested. CCH has been notified of these failures by both phone and email and I also sent all of my pictures and data on this to them in advance of its publishing here, however I have not been able to get an official statement from them regarding this. It is now up to CCH to take ownership of this issue and begin investigating these failures.
Here are the details:
Failure 1: Red Alien- Date stamp of 0702, which is more than 2 years prior to the date range of the earlier recall (which covered 11-04 to 12-05 per the expanded date range once more failed units were discovered) and does not bear the Tensile Tested stamp (which is not surprising given it was not covered by the recall, which explicitly stated that units prior to 11-04 did not need to be sent in for testing). Failure came at under 5kN by way of the stem pulling from the head. It is rated to 12kN.
On the Product Recall page on CCH's website there is a link to their Recall FAQ, in which item number 6 states that:
"6) Have there been any reported or tested stem brazing failures of cams without the "center punch dimple?"
No, cams without the center punch dimple have not been found to have brazing issues and are not included in this recall."
This cam is clearly outside of the recall dates and does not bear the center punch dimple. As mentioned above, this non-recall failure has been reported to CCH and they need to begin an investigation.
The cam had been bootied by Tigerlilly in New York somewhere and looked to be in ok condition except for a slightly tweaked head and a broken trigger wire, but upon closer inspection 3 of the strands of the stem cable had detached right at the head so she sent it to me for destruction rather than getting it repaired and put on her rack. Prior to testing the braze looked ok, if perhaps with a bit less of a fillet in the braze compared to other Aliens I've seen. While I understand that bootied gear is always suspect, the fact that it was bootied has no bearing on the fact that the braze was done incorrectly, as evidenced in the pictures below.
Before testing- notice the broken trigger wire:
Before Testing- notice the slightly tweaked head, ok looking braze and three detached cable strands:
Loaded into the test fixture:
Screenshot of the datalog of the applied forces:
Closeup of the detached head: (pardon the bit of grass, hadn't noticed that earlier)
Both the head and stem- notice the complete lack of braze wicking down the cable strands. Clearly a manufacturing defect and well outside of the recall.
And finally the date stamp:
EDIT- Here's a pic of the cross section of the head. Its the one in the middle.
For comparison, here is a picture of the head and stem from a different Red Alien that I broke a wile back. This one had a date stamp of 1106 and the head had the letter L stamped on it and failed at 11.3kN by way of the stem breaking at the base of the head (which from reports I've read is the usual failure mode). In the cross section of the head you can clearly see where the remains of the cable are and how the braze material had wicked down the strands to provide the bond between the head and stem. There is a large void at the bottom presumably because CCH does not include a weep hole for the braze material to run out, which would allow for an obvious visual confirmation that the joint had been completely filled. In this case the bond was strong enough that the cable broke first, but in the failure above it was not and there was no obvious indication that the joint on the cam above was faulty.
Failure 2: Purple Alien- Date stamp of 0105, which is right at the end in the middle of the recall period (see this post for an explanation of the confusion). Seeing as post-recall units are supposedly all stamped Tensile Tested this one either was subject to the recall or was tested and didn't get the stamp. Either way it doesn't matter, as the failure had nothing to do with the braze. Rather, the axle went C-shaped at a bit under 11kN, which is a good bit under its 15kN rating.
This cam is mine and came to me from a guy on Mountain Project who I bought a bunch of stuff from as he was thinning out his rack a bit. The cam was in fine working order when I got it, although well used. I had been looking for a sample to break as failure modes of climbing gear interests me, so it went in the gear for testing pile. The crappy trigger repair is mine, and came about after I removed the one outer lobe to get a measurement on the axle diameter and thickness on the brass washer between the lobes (you need to cut the trigger wire to reinstall the lobe, and I needed those measurements for some research I was doing in regards to several reports I had seen of Aliens that were missing washers between the head and inner cam lobes). It reassembled just fine and I re-loctited the nut to the axle as it was prior to removal. I understand how partially disassembling the cam prior to the test may diminish its value in some people's eyes, but given the nature of the failure it is my belief that removing and reinstaling the outer lobe and nut had no effect on the nature or strength of the failure since CCH routinely removes and replaces these parts as part of rebuilding cams that are sent to them for repair.
CCH's website states that their axles are hardened stainless steel, but given the low load this axle deformed at I have a suspicion that it somehow missed being put through heat treatment. I am currently looking for someone near Philadelphia, PA with access to a Rockwell hardness tester that would be willing to either test it or let me have a couple minutes on the machine to do it myself. I have two other, non-deformed axles for comparison that will be measured as well and will report back once I get the measurements. If you have access to a hardness tester anywhere near Philadelphia, PA please contact me via PM.
This sort of axle deformation is actually apparent in a photo in the testing on CCH's website, although they do not list the sizes of the cams that were tested or whether the tests were stopped or the cams failed:
Regardless, this Purple pulled from the fixture over 4kN below its rated strength due to the deformation of the axle.
Before testing- well used but aside from my quick and dirty repair to the trigger in decent shape:
Loaded into the test fixture:
Screenshot of the datalog of the applied forces:
One side of the cam highlighting the deformed axle and mangled lobes:
The other side of the cam and more lobe mangling:
Detail shot of the date stamp:
So to return to the original point, if you have Aliens that have not been proof tested please, please do not use them until they've been tested. My recommendation would be to have them tested by an independent third party, although at the moment I'm a bit lacking in recommendations on who to go to. I had been doing it for a while, but given these findings I think it would be best for me to stop doing it for fear of accusations of bias.
Additionally, I've noted a substantial discrepancy in hardness of CCH's cam lobes from what would be expected for the alloy they claim to use... They're much, much softer than expected and if I test them in my crack fixture they develop flat spots between 2 and 3 kN of force. If I test them with steel plates threaded through the trigger to support the lobes from underneath 1 time out of 5 the lobes are soft enough that they compress and pinch the internal spring, which makes the trigger action not work properly. I have no idea how CCH manages to do the testing on cams sent back to them for testing, but its obviously neither of those methods unless they do it by way of performing the test and then replacing a bunch of damaged parts.
Speaking of cam lobe hardness, I've reported on that before here in The Lab... While CCH claims on their website to use 6061T6 aluminum extrusions for them, they're clearly either not 6061 or not in T6 condition as the lobes I've had hardness tested came back at ~45 Rockwell B scale and 6061 in T6 condition should be somewhere between 55 and 60 Rockwell B. I've been in contact with someone who questioned Dave Waggoner, President of CCH, on this point yesterday in response to my call for information about CCH's quality processes, and he was told that CCH does not do any heat treating themselves and that the variation in hardness is the fault of their extrusion vendor. But I digress, as this is a tangent from the main point that units outside of the recall (in both time and manner) have been found and CCH needs to address this issue.
In emials over the past few days Nadia Waggoner from CCH states that CCH has been advising their customers to return any cams not marked with Tensile Tested for testing. I have not seen any such recommendation anywhere and all the documentation I've seen specifically states that cams prior to the recall dates are not effected and should not be returned for testing (this documentation includes the recall documentation on their website and the announcement here on RC that she directed me to). There is a brief mention on their website that they will test any Aliens sent to them, but that isn't a reccomendation that pre-recall units should be sent for testing. I also have an email from her that says that this recommendation has never been published anywhere and is just something they tell customers if they call. Additionally, the Purple failure is completely different than any reported failure up to this point and would not have been caught by their current test procedures as it did not involve the braze or head/stem connection.
Caveat Emptor, and climb safe people.
-aric.
(This post was edited by adatesman on Jun 5, 2009, 3:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 10:30 AM
Post #2 of 713
(16023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
Not to do a drive by with this, but I need to run out for an hour. I'll be back shortly to answer any questions and if the other Mods can keep an eye on this I'd appreciate it.
Back now. thanks.
-aric.
(This post was edited by adatesman on May 20, 2009, 11:59 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
May 20, 2009, 10:42 AM
Post #3 of 713
(15981 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 8775
|
Great report, Aric! Makes me glad I carry TCUs, but also makes me wonder how many other companies might have undiscovered issues about their gear too.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
May 20, 2009, 11:03 AM
Post #4 of 713
(15912 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 466
|
Perhaps someone may want to make this an announcement as this forum likely gets less traffic than General, or the front page.
|
|
|
|
|
jsj42
May 20, 2009, 11:25 AM
Post #5 of 713
(15848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Posts: 374
|
Well... I'm not so sure I think this is as big a deal as you're making it out to be (on this site and pn Mountain Project). Here's why:
First, the Red Alien. This piece was bootied, and when you tested it, the head was tweaked and several of the strands of the cable were already broken (from what I could see on the photo you posted, it is actually a sizable portion of the cable that is broken). Obviously this piece held a whipper. In my experience, body weight can tweak a head, but only a whipper will tweak the head and break cable like that. Even if it wasn't a whipper, this cam was certainly abused.
Any climber knows that you should visually inspect your gear. If you have a core shot rope, a worn out belay loop, or a fucked up cam, you're NOT going to climb on it! One look at that red Alien would have kept me from climbing on it (and obviously it kept Tigerlily from even wanting to keep it).
I would have no reason whatsoever to believe that this cam would be full-strength prior to testing. Sorry to rain on your parade, but not even the "failure mode" of the cable pulling apart from the braze bothers me. If cables are broken, who knows how the braze had been affected and exactly where else it had been weakened by whatever forces tweaked the cam to begin with. Those are unknowns. Sorry, but you need to be testing NEW Aliens if you want to prove anything. In my opinion, the moment a cam is placed for the first time, the countdown on it's lifespan has begun.
Regarding the Purple Alien. You could certainly make more of a case here. Even though 11 kN is a damn-safe number by free-climbing standards, it is lower than the minimum failure rating for the cam. However, the cam is still a used cam. Has anyone ever hung from it? Has it held falls? Perhaps it was tested by CCH, but if their testing setup works by testing the cable and the braze, that would leave the loop, the cam lobes, and the axle as possible failure points that aren't accounted for. That's a problem. But how exactly did it fail? Is it possible that the wear on the cam lobes caused them to slip or be loaded asymmetrically, which could, in turn, cause the axle to bend? I don't know, I'm not an engineer and I wasn't there.
I'm not trying to defend CCH -- I think they've got a lot of problems. But as far as I can tell, you can't go making conclusions based on two isolated tests of used (and in one case obviously damaged) pieces.
(This post was edited by jsj42 on May 20, 2009, 11:28 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 20, 2009, 11:39 AM
Post #6 of 713
(15792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 6200
|
A bad dog is always a bad dog
I know other dogs are sitting in the offices right now reading about this waiting to kill one more competition .
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
May 20, 2009, 11:46 AM
Post #7 of 713
(15772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 41
|
Great photos and a nice write-up; thanks for your time and effort.
But I have a question: if the purpose of the braze is to attach the wire stem to the head, then the photos of the 1st cam suggest to me (based on 0 technical knowledge or experience, admittedly) that the braze -- whether deficient or not -- served its purpose: the stump of the wire remains well-embedded in the head. The failures of the wires themselves, just outside of the head, seems more attributable to repeated tweaking and corrosion than to any inadequacy of the braze.
Although I suppose that a better braze might have helped a) protect that portion of the wires from corrosion; and b) shift the focus of "tweak strain" somewhat further up the stem. Whether that would raise the failure load or just shift the location of the failure is an open question.
Thoughts and comments?
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 20, 2009, 12:02 PM
Post #9 of 713
(15694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 617
|
jsj42 wrote: First, the Red Alien. This piece was bootied, and when you tested it, the head was tweaked and several of the strands of the cable were already broken (from what I could see on the photo you posted, it is actually a sizable portion of the cable that is broken).
Agreed, much ado about nothing. Any cam with busted cable strands and left to rust for months is going to be weakened. Even the Purple one failing at 11kN isn't anything to get your panties in a bunch about--still plenty strong.
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
May 20, 2009, 12:10 PM
Post #10 of 713
(15668 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 41
|
I didn't miss it, but I didn't give it the same interpretation you're giving it either. I agree the lack of brazing is evident; I take it you're reading the variation in remaining length of the wires as evidence that a good number of them simply pulled out of the head, whereas others broke off, leaving the raggedy stump.
It's a pretty plausible interpretation. But the photo above seems to show (from a not very good angle) a solidly filled-in stump, with no obvious holes where any wires pulled out. Hence my interpretation. Maybe the OP can shed some light on this?
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 20, 2009, 12:11 PM
Post #11 of 713
(15659 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 1266
|
adatesman wrote: Closeup of the detached head: (pardon the bit of grass, hadn't noticed that earlier) Both the head and stem- notice the complete lack of braze wicking down the cable strands. Clearly a manufacturing defect and well outside of the recall.
Could someone describe (or offer a link to something describing) what "braze wicking" is? I couldn't find it after a quick search on google. So far, all my other knowledge about brazing has come from wikipedia.
jsj42 wrote: First, the Red Alien. This piece was bootied, and when you tested it, the head was tweaked and several of the strands of the cable were already broken (from what I could see on the photo you posted, it is actually a sizable portion of the cable that is broken). Obviously this piece held a whipper.
I'm tempted to agree with that. However, I first need to understand the "braze wicking" issue, since it appears to me that Aric thinks (worries?) that the failure might be from that (a manufacturing defect) more than the previous use (user-end issue).
The following might need to be updated once I learn about braze whicking, but I'll post it now anyways. If three strands were BROKEN, how many other strands were significantly weakened? And how many strands were weakened a little bit? I think one thing that should be clear is that based upon the look of the cam before breaking, it is very likely that it DID a hold a fall well above 5 kN. [See Aric's post below about strike through.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 20, 2009, 3:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
May 20, 2009, 12:12 PM
Post #12 of 713
(15655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 2330
|
Aric, I'm not gonna jump CCH, but you.........
That is the most jury rigged trigger wire I've ever seen, totally amateur for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 12:16 PM
Post #13 of 713
(15638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
EDIT- Forgot to preface this with "Anything from this point forward in these discussions is my personal opinion unless otherwise notated as test results or confirmed facts".
jsj42 wrote: First, the Red Alien.
Hey Jsj42,
You're right, it was a bootied piece with three broken strands in the cable. Frankly I'm amazed that Tigerlilly even saw it, as they're sticking out like that in the pic because I bent them that way to show up in the photo. When I got the cam it took me a good 10 minutes to see what she was talking about.
Not to be arguementative, but as Cracklover said above the issue is the complete lack of brazing material on the section of the stem that was in the head. Think of brazing as high temperature solder... It works by creating a molecular bond (NOT MECHANICAL) between the materials and if its not there, there's no bond and you'll get pullout just like this with no brazing material on the individual strands. In my opinion it absolutely is a big deal. To me its a clear manufacturing defect similar to what occurred in the recall, but a full 2 years prior and completely unrelated to whatever treatment the cam suffered prior to coming into my possession. No abuse it could possibly have seen would be responsible for the removal of the brazing material from the head/stem joint. The failure in the recall was slightly different in that it was due to a water quench of the hot brazed joint interfering with the proper setup of the brazing material (think cold solder joint), but the net effect is the same.
jsj42 wrote: Regarding the Purple Alien...
Actually, I feel I made less of a case for this one as I haven't yet had a chance to get any hardness measurements on the axle. My hunch is that it was incorrectly (or even not) heat treated, based on the behavior of the axles on other cams I've broken (including axles I made that were intentionally soft). I will have the hardness measurements sometime soon, but don't have them yet. My main concern is that its a new failure mode which wouldn't to my knowledge (based on the test procedures posted on the CCH website) wouldn't be caught. It would also indicate yet another out of control manufacturing process, which is concerning to me.
(This post was edited by adatesman on May 20, 2009, 12:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
afahrlan
May 20, 2009, 12:17 PM
Post #14 of 713
(15631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2008
Posts: 6
|
This is great testing. Thank you for your work to make everyone in the community safer. Given all of the information that we have learned about CCH's (lack of) quality control, it is not surprising that QC issues extend beyond the scope of the recall.
That being said, I think the most important issue is not about Aliens before/during the recall. Anyone who is paying attention knows that these units are not safe. Rather, what has been done about quality control since the recall? The two questions I would like to see answered are:
1.) What is involved in CCH's testing that earns an Alien the stamp "Tensile Tested"?
2.) Do Aliens that are stamped "Tensile Tested" fail below their rated loads?
For (1), you present good evidence here that the testing is NOT as comprehensive as we would like; because, if the entire unit was really pull tested (as done by every other major manufacturer) the lobes/trigger mechanism would be damaged in the process. From CCH's standpoint, I think it is very much in their interests to thoroughly answer (1) to restore some of our faith in their quality control processes. Given their track record though, I don't think the answer would pass community scrutiny. I'm not holding my breath.
For (2), we have little more than second-hand information that there may be issues. But given CCH's track record, and their distinct lack of information about their pull-testing process, I would not be surprised if many "Tensile Tested" Aliens fail well below spec.
As a community, we need to provide you (or another objective third party that can do reliable pull testing) with a sample of post-recall, "tensile tested" Aliens to pull test to see if they fail below their rating. A single "tensile tested" Alien that fails like either of these two tests could put CCH out of business.
I think as a community, we could easily pool enough money/units to make this testing happen; it's just as much of an investment in our safety as sponsoring bolt replacement through the ASCA. Where do I send the check?
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
patto
May 20, 2009, 12:24 PM
Post #16 of 713
(15588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 640
|
This is going to be hard fight to keep this thread clean from the bickering about aliens that we have already have had.
At the end of the day the best we can do is put this information out there. Adatesman has done a great job of performing these tests and presenting the information.
I'd like to see more test on large numbers of new aliens. However nobody has the finances to do this. If CCH performs public testing on new aliens to back its ratings then it could bring back faith in its product. But short of that why would you trust your life with a company that has so many issues?
I think the fact that the lobes are so soft is a big concern. If they can't even get that right then what else are they screwing up?
jsj42 wrote: I'm not trying to defend CCH -- I think they've got a lot of problems. But as far as I can tell, you can't go making conclusions based on two isolated tests of used (and in one case obviously damaged) pieces.
No conclusions are being made. But it certainly is a little troubling and adds to the years of evidence of poor quality control and failures from CCH.
Besides I didn't realise that cams were now single use pieces. A tweaked piece should still be plenty strong. Furthermore I think you are missing the point, wires that were supposably braised and secured in the head pulled out. It is the failure mode that is concerning.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 12:24 PM
Post #17 of 713
(15586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
retr2327 wrote: But I have a question: if the purpose of the braze is to attach the wire stem to the head, then the photos of the 1st cam suggest to me (based on 0 technical knowledge or experience, admittedly) that the braze -- whether deficient or not -- served its purpose: the stump of the wire remains well-embedded in the head. The failures of the wires themselves, just outside of the head, seems more attributable to repeated tweaking and corrosion than to any inadequacy of the braze. Although I suppose that a better braze might have helped a) protect that portion of the wires from corrosion; and b) shift the focus of "tweak strain" somewhat further up the stem. Whether that would raise the failure load or just shift the location of the failure is an open question. Thoughts and comments?
A proper braze will completely fill the joint, similar to what's shown in the cross section of the other head. Even that one isn't so good due to some porosity and the large void down at the bottom, which isn't surprising since they don't put in a weep hole to allow the braze to flow through and for the flux to boil out. In my mind its unquestionable that the tweaked strands played no part in the failure as the load was only held by the small handfull of strands on one side of the head that actually bonded with the braze.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 12:26 PM
Post #18 of 713
(15572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
cracklover wrote: Which clearly shows 1 - nearly half the cable pulled out of the head, and 2 - the cable that pulled out shows no sign of brazing. This sucks. Thanks for the nice write-up. I wish it was better news, but it is what it is. GO
Kinda worse that that, Cracklover. It takes a bright light and close look to see any brazing material anywhere on the remains of the stem. The pieces in the head look rather loosely attached as well, but at this point I'm not going to go pulling at them.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 12:28 PM
Post #19 of 713
(15562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: jsj42 wrote: First, the Red Alien. This piece was bootied, and when you tested it, the head was tweaked and several of the strands of the cable were already broken (from what I could see on the photo you posted, it is actually a sizable portion of the cable that is broken). Agreed, much ado about nothing. Any cam with busted cable strands and left to rust for months is going to be weakened. Even the Purple one failing at 11kN isn't anything to get your panties in a bunch about--still plenty strong.
That's quite the assumption you made there. The cam has unknown history, which means it just as likely was out there overnight as it was left out in the elements for months. FWIW there is no sign of rust anywhere on it.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 12:30 PM
Post #20 of 713
(15550 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
retr2327 wrote: I didn't miss it, but I didn't give it the same interpretation you're giving it either. I agree the lack of brazing is evident; I take it you're reading the variation in remaining length of the wires as evidence that a good number of them simply pulled out of the head, whereas others broke off, leaving the raggedy stump. It's a pretty plausible interpretation. But the photo above seems to show (from a not very good angle) a solidly filled-in stump, with no obvious holes where any wires pulled out. Hence my interpretation. Maybe the OP can shed some light on this?
OP most certainly can... I'll take a couple more detail pics and will post shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 20, 2009, 12:31 PM
Post #21 of 713
(15538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 617
|
cracklover wrote: Which clearly shows 1 - nearly half the cable pulled out of the head, and 2 - the cable that pulled out shows no sign of brazing.
Still not convinced this is a defect or a problem. He doesn't show any evidence at all that the breaks are inside the head. Everything appears to be external. Perhaps a better photo would help. What are the weather conditions like in the area? Lots of humidity and air pollution?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #22 of 713
(15522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
spikeddem wrote: Could someone describe (or offer a link to something describing) what "braze wicking" is? I couldn't find it after a quick search on google. So far, all my other knowledge about brazing has come from wikipedia.
Braze wicking is just another way to say that the molten braze material is pulled up into the joint and around the strands of the cable by capillary action. The clear lack of brazing material on the cable shows that this did not occur, which most likely means that they didn't put enough on (its a manual process with a torch in one hand and a brazing rod in the other)
In reply to: I think one thing that should be clear is that based upon the look of the cam before breaking, it is very likely that it DID a hold a fall well above 5 kN.
I absolutely disagree on this. There's no knowing how severe a fall it held if any. The cam has an unknown history and the broken strands and tweaked cable very well may have come from trying to unstick the cam.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
May 20, 2009, 12:42 PM
Post #23 of 713
(15484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1003
|
patto wrote: This is going to be hard fight to keep this thread clean from the bickering about aliens that we have already have had.
Don't worry. I've started my very own bickering session here:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...6;page=unread#unread
Let's leave this thread for discussion of this particular test.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 12:44 PM
Post #24 of 713
(15472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 2714
|
afahrlan wrote: This is great testing. Thank you for your work to make everyone in the community safer. Given all of the information that we have learned about CCH's (lack of) quality control, it is not surprising that QC issues extend beyond the scope of the recall. That being said, I think the most important issue is not about Aliens before/during the recall. Anyone who is paying attention knows that these units are not safe. Rather, what has been done about quality control since the recall? The two questions I would like to see answered are: 1.) What is involved in CCH's testing that earns an Alien the stamp "Tensile Tested"?
2.) Do Aliens that are stamped "Tensile Tested" fail below their rated loads?
For (1), you present good evidence here that the testing is NOT as comprehensive as we would like; because, if the entire unit was really pull tested (as done by every other major manufacturer) the lobes/trigger mechanism would be damaged in the process. From CCH's standpoint, I think it is very much in their interests to thoroughly answer (1) to restore some of our faith in their quality control processes. Given their track record though, I don't think the answer would pass community scrutiny. I'm not holding my breath. For (2), we have little more than second-hand information that there may be issues. But given CCH's track record, and their distinct lack of information about their pull-testing process, I would not be surprised if many "Tensile Tested" Aliens fail well below spec. As a community, we need to provide you (or another objective third party that can do reliable pull testing) with a sample of post-recall, "tensile tested" Aliens to pull test to see if they fail below their rating. A single "tensile tested" Alien that fails like either of these two tests could put CCH out of business. I think as a community, we could easily pool enough money/units to make this testing happen; it's just as much of an investment in our safety as sponsoring bolt replacement through the ASCA. Where do I send the check? Andrew
Couple things here Andrew....
Question 1. CCH has some of their current, post-recall testing process documented on their website. At the moment they take a double length of cable, braze a head on each end, pull it from head to head between pins on a test fixture to X pounds (varies based on size), cut the thing in half to get 2 tested stems and then mark them both. I do not know if this is 100% testing or spot checks.
Question 2. I don't know. There have been reports of post-recall failures, but none that I've seen first hand and none that I know of that occurred in a controlled environment with test equipment.
As for the rest, yes this is absolutely not as comprehensive as anyone would like but I'm limited in what I can do since most of the gear I test is donated. I'll gladly test more if someone wants to send them, but at this point I think a better idea would be to gather them all up and pay a testing company to break them and generate a report. It'll cost a bunch, but would be better than me doing it as my equipment is not certified and I really don't like being in the middle of this since there could be accusations of bias, etc.
That said I believe my equipment to be correct (I actually have 5 sets of load cells and strain gage indicators and they all agree with one another) and already have most of the needed documentation, its just I don't need it certified for what I use it for (testing prototypes that I make) I haven't bothered to pay to go through the certification process.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
May 20, 2009, 12:48 PM
Post #25 of 713
(15451 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 640
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: Still not convinced this is a defect or a problem. He doesn't show any evidence at all that the breaks are inside the head. Everything appears to be external. Perhaps a better photo would help. What are the weather conditions like in the area? Lots of humidity and air pollution?
Humidity and air pollution!? How is this relevant? If cams start being severely weakened from humity and air pollution then this is an even bigger concern!
You have seen a couple of photos and think that you can view the failure mode better than adatesman? Have a look a the rest of the guys work and realise he is thorough and knows what he is doing.
I would like to keep posting against all this head in the sand attitude to alien defects however I feel it will just add to the inevitable fight this thread will become despite the mods best efforts.
Suffice to say I will never climb on aliens and I believe it is merely a matter of time before CCH go out of business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
