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.

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.

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

also true.

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:

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

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).

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.

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

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

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

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