|
|
|
|
gothcopter
May 20, 2009, 8:18 PM
Post #26 of 747
(12030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 145
|
adatesman wrote: 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) adatesman wrote: Failure 2: Purple Alien- Date stamp of 0105, which is right at the end of the recall period. 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. Just thought I'd point out that these two statements contradict each other. 0105 is near the beginning of the recall period, but well within it. Doesn't affect the validity of your results in any way, but you might want to correct the original post just to avoid confusion. I have 3 non-dimpled Aliens from the recall range (1104, 1204, 0105). They are in good condition and I can attest to their history. If enough people wish it, maybe I'll send them to you for destructive testing. What say you all?
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 20, 2009, 8:23 PM
Post #27 of 747
(12004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
gothcopter wrote: I have 3 non-dimpled Aliens from the recall range (1104, 1204, 0105). They are in good condition and I can attest to their history. If enough people wish it, maybe I'll send them to you for destructive testing. What say you all? Well since you asked "all," I'll chime in. Aric has said that he'd prefer to have a certified company do any (serious) further testing. Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
May 20, 2009, 8:29 PM
Post #28 of 747
(11990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
adatesman wrote: After almost 3 full days of calling and emailing CCH about this they're finally doing something... questioning my credentials, background, impartiality and test procedures. What did you expect? That one failure, where the poor fucker posted pictures of the thing actually exploding in a real fall, Waggoner got on board and publicly accused the guy of faking the incident. Don't take it personally. I don't expect any of this to change anything. We have what looks like a braze failure-- a modality we've seen many times before --and what looks like a sourcing problem. The question now is, would anyone really be surprised? Folks who are going to climb on Aliens are going to climb on them. Everyone else made up their minds long ago.
(This post was edited by k.l.k on May 20, 2009, 8:29 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
May 20, 2009, 8:29 PM
Post #29 of 747
(11987 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Aric, I want to say thank you for what you're doing. You're donating time, effort, and risking getting flamed by detractors, and all the while it looks like you're trying to do the best that you can do with what you have. What you're doing isn't easy, but it's awesome! Sincerely, Josh
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 20, 2009, 8:32 PM
Post #30 of 747
(11975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
We all know that CCH has had serious issues with their brazing procedures so pre-recall units exhibiting that mode of failure is IMO less of a significant development than the possibility that CCH has been purchasing and using subpar material for the construction of their cams. Obviously more testing and investigation needs to be done to understand the scope of the problem, or if a problem even exists, but I'm very concerned that CCH's QC problems appear to be systemic.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
May 20, 2009, 8:35 PM
Post #31 of 747
(11959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
adatesman wrote: patto wrote: Have a look a the rest of the guys work and realise he is thorough and knows what he is doing. Thanks Patto, I needed that right about now. After almost 3 full days of calling and emailing CCH about this they're finally doing something... questioning my credentials, background, impartiality and test procedures. Sigh. What I mess I've created for myself. Its important to get the word out though, and I'd do it all again in a heartbeat. -a. IMO it's clear that CCH has no business manufacturing anything, let alone a device people depend on for their lives. But they have a good point. Having spent years in QC, how you're testing is extremely relevant. If you're going to present data on a public forum like this, you need to give more information about your equipment and method. In industry, you would expect to have details like this with every test report.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 20, 2009, 8:38 PM
Post #32 of 747
(11944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
bandycoot wrote: Aric, I want to say thank you for what you're doing. You're donating time, effort, and risking getting flamed by detractors, and all the while it looks like you're trying to do the best that you can do with what you have. What you're doing isn't easy, but it's awesome! Sincerely, Josh +1 And not just in this thread but the entire lab. This has become a very interesting place to lurk as of late. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
May 20, 2009, 8:39 PM
Post #33 of 747
(11941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
If you read the OP you'll notice that Aric stated that in order to be brief he wouldn't include his equipment or methods because that information can all easily be found in the lab forum. Good work on the testing Aric, and I will continue to not climb on aliens.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 20, 2009, 8:40 PM
Post #34 of 747
(11940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 20, 2009, 8:43 PM
Post #35 of 747
(11933 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 20, 2009, 8:55 PM
Post #36 of 747
(11899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
adatesman wrote: shoo wrote: 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. Oy. I'm not even going to look. Don't worry. It didn't turn out the way he intended.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 20, 2009, 9:07 PM
Post #37 of 747
(11867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
May 20, 2009, 9:38 PM
Post #38 of 747
(11812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
adatesman wrote: moose_droppings wrote: 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. Yeah.... But what's the point of doing a pretty repair on something you're going to break anyway? Well then you didn't need a wire at all just for that.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 20, 2009, 9:47 PM
Post #39 of 747
(11796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 20, 2009, 10:11 PM
Post #40 of 747
(11755 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
CHORUS: The beat goes on, the beat goes on Drums keep pounding a rhythm of denial to the brain La de da de de, la de da de da Aliens were once the rage, uh huh History has turned the page, uh huh The mini skirts the current thing, uh huh Teenybopper is our newborn king, uh huh
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 10:12 PM
Post #41 of 747
(11750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
So basically, maybe a quarter of the wires in the cable were brazed well enough for the wire to break before the braze. Maybe. That's just plain scary.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 10:20 PM
Post #42 of 747
(11732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
adatesman wrote: patto wrote: Have a look a the rest of the guys work and realise he is thorough and knows what he is doing. Thanks Patto, I needed that right about now. After almost 3 full days of calling and emailing CCH about this they're finally doing something... questioning my credentials, background, impartiality and test procedures. Sigh. What I mess I've created for myself. Its important to get the word out though, and I'd do it all again in a heartbeat. -a. Oh, and I also wanted to say that it's perfectly clear here that, whatever your background and credentials (and even impartiality), you've done a great job here. Doesn't matter who you are or what you think. What matters is the evidence you've provided, and that speaks volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 20, 2009, 10:21 PM
Post #43 of 747
(11732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
May 20, 2009, 10:25 PM
Post #44 of 747
(11720 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
adatesman wrote: Well, it appears to be 7x7 wire (7 bundles of 7 strands) which makes for a total of 49 stands and by my count there are ~20 full length strands remaining. Knowing that at least 3 strands were visibly broken before the test that gives us.... ? Interesting side note this brings up though... Current "generation" (I use the term loosely since there seems to be wide variation in how they're put together judging by the washer issue and changes to the drigger) use 7x19 cable (7 bundles of 19 stands). I hadn't noticed the difference earlier. A little over half, then. My mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 20, 2009, 10:30 PM
Post #45 of 747
(11714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
mtnjohn
May 20, 2009, 11:13 PM
Post #46 of 747
(11662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 230
|
Is anyone doing independent testing of any other cams? Do we really want to know the results of those test?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 20, 2009, 11:40 PM
Post #47 of 747
(11636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 20, 2009, 11:59 PM
Post #48 of 747
(11609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
adatesman wrote: 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. Aliencamsbycch.com says every main cable since January 2006 has been tested in this manner. This makes me believe that nowadays the issue with poor "braze wicking" would be prevented from reaching the market. You said "X" pounds, and of course it does vary based on stem size, but they always test to at least 7.77 kN. I'm interested in hearing about the hardness testing results. Have you found a place to test that yet? edit: Clarity.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on May 21, 2009, 1:27 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 12:10 AM
Post #49 of 747
(11906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
mtnjohn
May 21, 2009, 12:12 AM
Post #50 of 747
(11903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 230
|
Thanks for the update. I guess it's finally time to retire the U stems. I'm down to only one left anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
|