Forums: Climbing Information: Gear Heads:
RC.com official statement on CCH?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Gear Heads

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


shoo


May 20, 2009, 12:38 PM
Post #1 of 46 (5325 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

RC.com official statement on CCH?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (14 ratings)  
Can't Post

This thread is intended to discuss whether or not it would be appropriate at this point for the RC.com administrators to make an official, public statement regarding QC issues at CCH. I have stated my opinion below. This thread is intended for discussion only, and does not represent the official opinion of RC.com. Mods, I encourage you to post up. Also, I have no issue with you feeling that you need to moderate this thread heavily or move it to another forum.


I understand that there has yet to be a definitive study to show whether or not given generations of alien cams can be expected fail at or above claimed ratings to scientifically rigorous standards. However, there is more than enough anecdotal and semi-scientific evidence to suggest that quality control at CCH is not up to accepted standards.

There is enough information in the public domain to indicate that CCH is careless at best, likely bordering on negligence. At its extreme, there is even the suggestion of willful ignorance or outright fraudulence in their statements, though this hypothesis has only anecdotal evidence supporting it.

I personally believe that people should climb at their own risk, emphasizing that there is always risk. However, risk associated with poor manufacturing standards from an established and popular gear producer is not acceptable, given the number of other similar gear producers whose products are consistent and effective.

I believe it would be appropriate for the administration of RC.com to make an official, public statement, recommending against the use of suspect generation CCH brand cams until the following actions are taken:

1. A public apology and acknowledgment of the quality control issues in CCH.

2. Publication of a reasonably powered trial of suspect generations of alien cams found on the market. This would include both new and used cams if available. Cams would be both reviewed for ultimate breaking strength and mode of failure. The trial should be performed by a well respected independent, third party organization. The final report of the trial should not be subject to CCH approval.

3. An independent review of quality control and production methods by an appropriate independent, third party organization familiar with this type of work. This organization shall publicly release a report detailing their findings and a suggested plan of action. This report would be censored only for intellectual property issues and to respect the personal privacy of CCH employees.

4. Public updates on the progress regarding the suggestions made in the above report, verified independently.

While these demands seem harsh, they are all items which companies in similar industries might perform before known problems occur. The only difference here is that I highly distrust CCH to take these actions on their own, and have placed a requirement of public disclosure and independent review.

It's about time that CCH takes some responsibility here.


billcoe_


May 20, 2009, 12:57 PM
Post #2 of 46 (5279 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4692

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
This thread is intended to discuss whether or not it would be appropriate at this point for the RC.com administrators to make an official, public statement regarding QC issues at CCH. I have stated my opinion below. This thread is intended for discussion only, and does not represent the official opinion of RC.com. Mods, I encourage you to post up. Also, I have no issue with you feeling that you need to moderate this thread heavily or move it to another forum.


I understand that there has yet to be a definitive study to show whether or not given generations of alien cams can be expected fail at or above claimed ratings to scientifically rigorous standards. However, there is more than enough anecdotal and semi-scientific evidence to suggest that quality control at CCH is not up to accepted standards.

There is enough information in the public domain to indicate that CCH is careless at best, likely bordering on negligence. At its extreme, there is even the suggestion of willful ignorance or outright fraudulence in their statements, though this hypothesis has only anecdotal evidence supporting it.

I personally believe that people should climb at their own risk, emphasizing that there is always risk. However, risk associated with poor manufacturing standards from an established and popular gear producer is not acceptable, given the number of other similar gear producers whose products are consistent and effective.

I believe it would be appropriate for the administration of RC.com to make an official, public statement, recommending against the use of suspect generation CCH brand cams until the following actions are taken:

1. A public apology and acknowledgment of the quality control issues in CCH.

2. Publication of a reasonably powered trial of suspect generations of alien cams found on the market. This would include both new and used cams if available. Cams would be both reviewed for ultimate breaking strength and mode of failure. The trial should be performed by a well respected independent, third party organization. The final report of the trial should not be subject to CCH approval.

3. An independent review of quality control and production methods by an appropriate independent, third party organization familiar with this type of work. This organization shall publicly release a report detailing their findings and a suggested plan of action. This report would be censored only for intellectual property issues and to respect the personal privacy of CCH employees.

4. Public updates on the progress regarding the suggestions made in the above report, verified independently.

While these demands seem harsh, they are all items which companies in similar industries might perform before known problems occur. The only difference here is that I highly distrust CCH to take these actions on their own, and have placed a requirement of public disclosure and independent review.

It's about time that CCH takes some responsibility here.

Why should the administrators stick their dicks in that knothole? There's already been 2000 pages (plus or minus a few thousand) of free speech both ways about this product. If anyone is interested in learning about Aliens they can just do a search.


justroberto


May 20, 2009, 1:00 PM
Post #3 of 46 (5267 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Jesus fucking christ.


shoo


May 20, 2009, 1:06 PM
Post #4 of 46 (5239 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [justroberto] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Heh. I know this is going to be unpopular. Whatever. Now time to sit back and watch.

Sub-question: Am I a troll if I actually believe the crap I say?


IsayAutumn


May 20, 2009, 1:17 PM
Post #5 of 46 (5206 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (9 ratings)  
Can't Post

Legitimate question: Why should I care what RC.com administrators say about a product?


colatownkid


May 20, 2009, 1:25 PM
Post #6 of 46 (5181 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
This thread is intended to discuss whether or not it would be appropriate at this point for the RC.com administrators to make an official, public statement regarding QC issues at CCH. I have stated my opinion below. This thread is intended for discussion only, and does not represent the official opinion of RC.com. Mods, I encourage you to post up. Also, I have no issue with you feeling that you need to moderate this thread heavily or move it to another forum.


I understand that there has yet to be a definitive study to show whether or not given generations of alien cams can be expected fail at or above claimed ratings to scientifically rigorous standards. However, there is more than enough anecdotal and semi-scientific evidence to suggest that quality control at CCH is not up to accepted standards.

There is enough information in the public domain to indicate that CCH is careless at best, likely bordering on negligence. At its extreme, there is even the suggestion of willful ignorance or outright fraudulence in their statements, though this hypothesis has only anecdotal evidence supporting it.

I personally believe that people should climb at their own risk, emphasizing that there is always risk. However, risk associated with poor manufacturing standards from an established and popular gear producer is not acceptable, given the number of other similar gear producers whose products are consistent and effective.

I believe it would be appropriate for the administration of RC.com to make an official, public statement, recommending against the use of suspect generation CCH brand cams until the following actions are taken:

1. A public apology and acknowledgment of the quality control issues in CCH.

2. Publication of a reasonably powered trial of suspect generations of alien cams found on the market. This would include both new and used cams if available. Cams would be both reviewed for ultimate breaking strength and mode of failure. The trial should be performed by a well respected independent, third party organization. The final report of the trial should not be subject to CCH approval.

3. An independent review of quality control and production methods by an appropriate independent, third party organization familiar with this type of work. This organization shall publicly release a report detailing their findings and a suggested plan of action. This report would be censored only for intellectual property issues and to respect the personal privacy of CCH employees.

4. Public updates on the progress regarding the suggestions made in the above report, verified independently.

While these demands seem harsh, they are all items which companies in similar industries might perform before known problems occur. The only difference here is that I highly distrust CCH to take these actions on their own, and have placed a requirement of public disclosure and independent review.

It's about time that CCH takes some responsibility here.

making a thread sticky is one thing, but what you're suggesting is something else entirely.

why should the administrators of RC.com care at all about aliens? what's in it for them? they aren't the climbing police. certainly they can provide information through the forums, but it is not up to them to make public statements about manufacturers.

it is we the consumers who should be concerned. if you want to start a petition, cool. but i don't see how RC.com has any real responsibility in this matter other than providing information.


colatownkid


May 20, 2009, 1:25 PM
Post #7 of 46 (5179 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512

Re: [IsayAutumn] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

IsayAutumn wrote:
Legitimate question: Why should I care what RC.com administrators say about a product?

also true.


kennoyce


May 20, 2009, 1:47 PM
Post #8 of 46 (5129 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't understand why RC.com should make an official statement on anything. If an official statement needs to be made, it needs to be made by CCH, not by RC.com.


shockabuku


May 20, 2009, 1:50 PM
Post #9 of 46 (5118 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

Official statements imply some type of authority or responsibility. The rc.com administrators have neither with regard to this issue.


chanceboarder


May 20, 2009, 2:25 PM
Post #10 of 46 (5042 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348

Re: [colatownkid] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

colatownkid wrote:
IsayAutumn wrote:
Legitimate question: Why should I care what RC.com administrators say about a product?

also true.
Exactly, the admin of this site are climbers just like us. They're no certifying organization or authority on the subject. They run and maintain a website for us to chatter back and forth on. While I'm sure some admins may have a personal opinion about this I would imagine that the site as a whole would like to stay neutral on the subject as far as the sites official stance on Aliens is concerned.

Jason


Johnny_Fang


May 20, 2009, 2:29 PM
Post #11 of 46 (5031 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 289

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

i would like to make an official statement to CCH from me, johnny_fang:

i swear, you guys are the Bush administration of the gear manufacturing world. CCH, you need to do one of two things

1. hire a goddamn PR person that knows how to immediately handle reports of failures by addressing them head-on with concern and care, rather than reacting with suspicion and/or neglect of the issue, and then get a open access quality control department to examine these issues and take immediate, appropriate steps to remedy them

OR

2. sell your patent to BD or Metolius, two companies with PR people that can do the above AND that have quality control departments which consistently ensure their products meet standards


moose_droppings


May 20, 2009, 2:50 PM
Post #12 of 46 (4991 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
I believe it would be appropriate for the administration of RC.com to make an official, public statement, recommending against the use of suspect generation CCH brand cams until the following actions are taken:

You running for some kind of self righteousness office or are you just a troll at the pulpit.

Tongue


pfwein


May 20, 2009, 2:53 PM
Post #13 of 46 (4988 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353

Re: [Johnny_Fang] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JF--I think many have pointed out that Aliens have been off patent for a while now. It's mystery to me as to why reputable gear manufacturers don't make basically identical products (identical except for the QC issues). People have speculated that it would be too expensive for some reason, even if they were outsourced to China.
I don't have any knowledge of these issues--it's interesting, and I mostly wanted to post about the patents (at least from the hearsay I've heard, and I've never heard anyone contradict it).


majid_sabet


May 20, 2009, 3:13 PM
Post #14 of 46 (4952 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [IsayAutumn] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

IsayAutumn wrote:
Legitimate question: Why should I care what RC.com administrators say about a product?

cause when CCH files a fat lawsuit on RC and wins, your As* and mine will be shipped to a different site.


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on May 20, 2009, 3:15 PM)


billcoe_


May 20, 2009, 5:33 PM
Post #15 of 46 (4857 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4692

Re: [pfwein] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

pfwein wrote:
JF--I think many have pointed out that Aliens have been off patent for a while now. It's mystery to me as to why reputable gear manufacturers don't make basically identical products (identical except for the QC issues). People have speculated that it would be too expensive for some reason, even if they were outsourced to China.
I don't have any knowledge of these issues--it's interesting, and I mostly wanted to post about the patents (at least from the hearsay I've heard, and I've never heard anyone contradict it).

OK, I will speak to that. The mechanism between the trigger and the head is still under patent. There, I said it. Metolius designed the Mastercam with that in mind.


blondgecko
Moderator

May 20, 2009, 5:59 PM
Post #16 of 46 (4825 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

My personal opinion: Asking RC.com for an official statement on this is akin to asking your toaster for its opinion on whether you should have dark or light toast. Rockclimbing.com is a tool - an open forum where people can share information and opinions on things that are important to them. For it as an entity to come forward with an official position would therefore betray its very reason for existence.


esoteric1


May 20, 2009, 6:01 PM
Post #17 of 46 (4818 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 705

Re: [billcoe_] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

idiot.


altelis


May 20, 2009, 7:16 PM
Post #18 of 46 (4744 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [blondgecko] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
My personal opinion: Asking RC.com for an official statement on this is akin to asking your toaster for its opinion on whether you should have dark or light toast. Rockclimbing.com is a tool - an open forum where people can share information and opinions on things that are important to them. For it as an entity to come forward with an official position would therefore betray its very reason for existence.

Hmm. I'm confused. You seem to be equating a tool with some sort of positive connotation, yet every time somebody calls ME a tool they seem to have anger in their eyes Angelic


ScarpaScarpa


May 20, 2009, 7:23 PM
Post #19 of 46 (4738 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 2, 2009
Posts: 59

Re: [majid_sabet] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
IsayAutumn wrote:
Legitimate question: Why should I care what RC.com administrators say about a product?

cause when CCH files a fat lawsuit on RC and wins, your As* and mine will be shipped to a different site.

Then we should totally do it.


shoo


May 20, 2009, 8:07 PM
Post #20 of 46 (4716 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [moose_droppings] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
You running for some kind of self righteousness office or are you just a troll at the pulpit.

Tongue

Probably the latter. If there's an award for best troll of 2009, then maybe both!

In all seriousness, I appreciate those who respectfully disagree with me. I agree with many, if not most of the points made here. I don't want to go around and pick through the points that I do and don't like, since this is a forum, and you can either agree with me or not.

Ultimately, I think that such a statement would really be more to stir up the pot a bit than anything. While the regular posters to RC.com and other internet climbing forums are fairly knowledgeable about these issues, we represent only a small portion of the climbing community. The hope would be that the small effort RC.com made would be picked up in more significant media.

An alternative approach would be a front-page article documenting in detail what we do and don't know about the alien cam failures. This would largely avoid many of the issues of authority and neutrality presented above. Thoughts?


cporter


May 20, 2009, 8:18 PM
Post #21 of 46 (4707 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 20, 2007
Posts: 31

Re: [esoteric1] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

esoteric is right, if your moderators are going to start this sh*t by stress testing cams then they should own up to it and make it an official statement.


curt


May 20, 2009, 8:40 PM
Post #22 of 46 (4681 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
This thread is intended to discuss whether or not it would be appropriate at this point for the RC.com administrators to make an official, public statement regarding QC issues at CCH...

Why not? Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears get to vote in Presidential elections, right?

Curt


dlintz


May 20, 2009, 8:46 PM
Post #23 of 46 (4666 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982

Re: [curt] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
shoo wrote:
This thread is intended to discuss whether or not it would be appropriate at this point for the RC.com administrators to make an official, public statement regarding QC issues at CCH...

Why not? Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears get to vote in Presidential elections, right?

Curt

Exactly! Curt for prez!

d.


MikeSaint


May 20, 2009, 8:59 PM
Post #24 of 46 (4648 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 19, 2007
Posts: 426

Curt for Prez? Hells Yea. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm pretty sure the official statement of RC.com has already been expressed. The community falls into varying camps that often disagree with each other.

If the mods were to offer their own personal opinion it would hold little value as one person. If the mods were to take a poll and represent the members of this forum well you'd have a clutterf#ck of a poll and ultimately pancakes would be the verdict.


That being said:

It stands to reason that the Moderators suggest Pancakes to CCH and call it good.


bill413


May 20, 2009, 9:15 PM
Post #25 of 46 (4632 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [shoo] RC.com official statement on CCH? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
Sub-question: Am I a troll if I actually believe the crap I say?
Well, if you believe you're a troll....

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Gear Heads

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$35.96 (10% off)
$14.36 (10% off)
$44.96 (10% off)
$19.76 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook