|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 1:52 PM
Post #76 of 747
(11731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 1:53 PM
Post #77 of 747
(11728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 2:11 PM
Post #78 of 747
(11701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
May 21, 2009, 2:30 PM
Post #79 of 747
(11672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
Great shots! Now I can really see the voids where the wires pulled out. Thanks again for your excellent work
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 2:30 PM
Post #80 of 747
(11671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
tigerlilly
May 21, 2009, 3:12 PM
Post #81 of 747
(11626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 564
|
adatesman wrote: tfs6755 wrote: I think it is possible that these cams never actually were sold in a store, ie they were factory rejects, since the history of the cam cannot be verified, the test result is not conclusive. Perhaps this has no bearing, but it is a scenario that you have not controlled for. As for the softness of the lobe aluminum, or that a complete factory reject could get out the door, that to me is a larger concern.Nothing is known about the Red, but I believe the Purple was purchased new from the guy on MP that I bought it from. I've just not yet had an opportunity to track down his phone number to get the full story. Its on the list for today though, now that things have calmed down a bit.
Since I sent in the red cam, let me tell you what I little I know about it.
I bootied it last summer from Yellow Ridge, in the Near Trapps (Gunks). It was well placed and not overcammed. I cleaned it easily in a matter of minutes, from a good stance, with a nut tool to help the lobes with the broken trigger wire. Given the popularity of the route and the ease with which I cleaned it, I sincerely doubt it was there long. I may have been the first party to come along since it was abandoned.
It was marked with green electrical tape. Perhaps the former owner will read this and recognize their gear and give us more information. I may even be able to find the date I bootied it if I try hard enough.
Edit: Date of booty was Aug 23, 2008.
My interpretation of the situation at the time, totally specutative, is that the leader had fallen on it and retreated, so that no one had attempted to clean it. Could also be that the trigger wire broke on placement and that the 2nd was either inexperienced at gear removal or lacked a nut tool to assist the crippled lobes.
I inspected the piece and found the 3 broken main cable filaments and parked it on a shelf as a souvenier until the Aric and the Lab came along. I decided to send it in to see how much strength a cam with obvious damage had lost. I never thought it would turn out as it has.
As far as the cam not having been sold in a store and was a factory reject, I think that is crazy wild speculation and just plain silly. Does anyone know of, or ever heard of an outlet for factory reject Aliens? Does CCH actually reject anything? Since the number of cams sold in stores almost certainly exceeds the number of factory rejects finding their way into the outside world (which may in fact be zero) by orders of magnitude, probability alone says it was store-bought.
Kathy
(This post was edited by tigerlilly on May 21, 2009, 5:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
May 21, 2009, 3:43 PM
Post #82 of 747
(11584 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
adatesman wrote: trapdoor wrote: I have a good idea concerning the presence of discontinuities or defects in the braze. Cut the head half way up and machine and polish the exposed cross section of the brazed cable/head joint. The polishing would have to be to a high standard. Then acid etch this joint to see the full extent of the brazing (capillary action) throughout the girth of the cable. The results could be easily inspected with a magnifying glass. I have seen the above test performed on cross sections of various welded joints with good results (induvidual weld passes can be see as well as the heat affected zone at the weld/base metal interface). To me this would be better than making assumptions of the extent of the braze by looking at the end of a failed cable. You could also perform the above mentioned test anywhere along the brazed joint. Heh. Exactly what was on my agenda for first thing this morning. Well, not quite... I'm not going to bother with the polishing and etching since its fairly apparent with just the milled finish. BTW, the first thing I did was to hit the bottom of all three heads I have with a brass brush to clean up all the grot and make the fillet of the braze easier to see. Having done that the braze on the Red looks horribly underfilled to me as there's absolutely no fillet on the joint. Here are the cross sections mounted on a 0.250" shoulder bolt I had laying around (same diameter as the axle and I used it to keep them in line and avoid issues with differing shadows/reflections in the pics). On top is the one from the Purple, which has some porosity but was apparently stronger than the axle. Notice how it doesn't line up with the others... The deforming axle actually bent the top of the head! Next down is the Red that broke under 5kN. In one of her emails to me Nadia from CCH stated and a metallurgist is needed to evaluate the joint, but frankly I don't need a metallurgist to tell me that thing's hollow. Hell, you can see the individual strands in there with absolutely no braze on them! The bottom one is from the Red I broke a while back and posted a cross section of earlier. [image]http://www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/nrr_alien_failures/cross_sections.JPG[/image] And a couple more pics of the bottom of the heads: [image]http://www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/nrr_alien_failures/brazes1.JPG[/image] [image]http://www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/nrr_alien_failures/brazes2.JPG[/image] [image]http://www.shariconglobal.com/misc/pulltesting/nrr_alien_failures/brazes3.JPG[/image]
Well, after reading all 4 pages, this last post answered my question. My question would have been:
If there were weep holes, and the braze material (solder?) actually weeped from the hole, would we see braze material at the center of the closely woven cable?
The last post shows this quite clearly, an almost full braze in the center of the cable, a mostly empty braze, and a braze with some voids, but still plenty strong.
The red alien failure is definitely alarming as I have a set pre-recall. Even with 3 of 49 cables broken, 46 other cables should have been in contact with the braze, not 26 at best.
The purple alien failure is actually quite less alarming, probably just gives me some concern. 11kN is still damn strong. Yes, it'd be nice to know that their lobe materials is up to spec, but a little deformation and better grip, wouldn't be too bad, if the cams are still holding 10+ kN. I very regularly climb over 7kN C3's and 4-5kN micronuts, which I treat as oh-shit pieces and either double up on them, make sure I don't fall, or fire in more gear soon, as I do with my blue aliens. What would be alarming is if the axle metal is indeed well below the correct hardness, meaning CCH doesn't bother checking any of this and this is yet another fault in their QC.
As far as I've read on their site and heard through this forum, every alien eye/braze/cable assembly is pull tested in a jig, but they aren't testing lobes (as evident by no indents in new cams), axles, or swages. This is of course with exception to the (what 6 or 7?, 10?) full cams tested on their site.
edit to add: this is a far cry from BD's 3-sigma testing approach.
(This post was edited by jrathfon on May 21, 2009, 3:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 4:13 PM
Post #83 of 747
(11525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 21, 2009, 4:35 PM
Post #84 of 747
(11493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
For what it's worth, my concerns are (in order)
1 - The poor QC on the brazing
2 - The sometimes cooked cables
3 - Poor QC on the axle hardness
My order here is based on potential strength degradation.
Then, much lower on my list:
4 - various other QC issues we've seen, such as wrong sized head for the color of the unit, mis-drilled cams, etc. These are not strength issues, and they'd be easy to spot.
As for the issue of the cam lobes not being to spec for hardness, I actually see that as simply a semantic/truth-in-advertising issue, and not a bad thing at all. I'll explain why it's not a concern to me.
First, my best guess is that the lobes have always been made out of this soft material. Aliens have long been known to get their cam lobes mushroomed out relatively quickly with use.
But considering the angle of the spiral they use, which gives them a better range than any other cams in their size, they need to have very soft lobes in order to hold to the rock. So even though it may be inadvertent on their part, it's actually not a defect, but rather part of what makes Aliens work better than other cams.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 21, 2009, 4:37 PM
Post #85 of 747
(11490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I apologize for the off-topic post, but does anyone know how WC Technical Friends have their cables attached? The head-stem connection looks remarkably similar to that of Aliens, except that it's clear that no brazing is involved.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 4:44 PM
Post #86 of 747
(11482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 4:45 PM
Post #87 of 747
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sogdiana
May 21, 2009, 4:52 PM
Post #88 of 747
(11447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2009
Posts: 4
|
The history of this cams is completely unknown. You can see from the photos, they have been in use for years... I think this is not "independent" test, this is a really "special order" against CCH, another series "lets bash CCH". I love my Aliens and I trust them!!!! I think they are the best!!! Startup companies can make just copies of Aliens and one of these may have asked Aric to do this test and publish to cause more trouble for CCH.
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
May 21, 2009, 4:55 PM
Post #89 of 747
(11447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
adatesman wrote: I'm also not as concerned about the purple per se; 10.5kN is not bad. Its just that its supposed to hold 15kN and the thought of their process being so screwed that a batch of axles could have possibly missed heat treatment gives me the willies. -a.
Right, that's what I was touching on, I'm not as concerned about the strength issue. I am majorly concerned if they aren't inspecting cams, testings cams, and ordering materials to spec.
As for the cutting, the new way is definitely very good, it gives you a very good inspection of the deeper part of the braze, but still maintains all the complexities of what is going on at the base during failure. I couldn't really tell what was going on with the first braze that you cut in half entirely, until it was juxtaposed to the 2 you cut the new perpendicular way, it just looked like a hollow tube to me with the shine. I then realized it was a braze full of braze material.
|
|
|
|
|
brawa
May 21, 2009, 4:58 PM
Post #90 of 747
(11434 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2009
Posts: 26
|
adatesman wrote: I actually tend to believe that their extruder is supplying the material to spec, as any there aren't all that many of them and one who doesn't meet spec won't be around long. So either CCH doesn't actually spec the lobes as 6061T6 or something else is going on. I have 3rd hand information (from a post on MP I think, where the guy on MP supposedly got a former CCH employee talking) that at some point in the process CCH heats the lobes with a blowtorch and then tosses them in a bucket of water. It was on the Internet so it must be true, right? Not. But if true it would certainly explain why the lobes tested so much softer than they should have been since that's a good way to anneal aluminum (and bring it down from its T6 hardness).
Most machine shops I've dealt with default to 6061 T6 or T651 when you say "I want this in aluminum". And I agree that a supplier who doesn't supply to spec wouldn't be around long. And CCH should have material certificates for the metal, no matter who supplied it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 5:03 PM
Post #93 of 747
(11414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 5:05 PM
Post #94 of 747
(11406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
May 21, 2009, 5:07 PM
Post #95 of 747
(11390 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
Sogdiana wrote: The history of this cams is completely unknown. You can see from the photos, they have been in use for years... I think this is not "independent" test, this is a really "special order" against CCH, another series "lets bash CCH". I love my Aliens and I trust them!!!! I think they are the best!!! Startup companies can make just copies of Aliens and one of these may have asked Aric to do this test and publish to cause more trouble for CCH.
Is it just me, or do these one time posters seem a bit biased?
You are suggesting that a small startup company is trying to manipulate the market through Aric?
Aric put all the facts on the table, including the fact that the exact history of the cams are unknown. Still, if you didn't pull test the red alien, and cut it in half to inspect the weld, you would definitely see the fact that the braze was not done correctly or up to spec. This is a pre-recall cam that CCH has specifically stated does not need to be pull-tested!
This thread is not a bashing thread, more a statement of facts, which I'll admit are damning to CCH.
I love aliens, I personally will keep climbing on them until they go out of manufacture (which looks like could be soon, I will probably stock up on some this weekend). But what this information (and all other info on rc.knob, MP, and ST) has taught me is that I need to stringently inspect ALL of my aliens for MANY points, and I will bounce TEST the crap out of the ones I haven't already taken FF0.8 falls onto. I also now have a set of requirements for visual inspection before I even buy them new from a retailer.
Aliens are AWESOME in soft rock, you won't find a piece that is blue alien sized that works as well or fits in the same places. The size range and soft lobes are great, as well as the head width. WC Zero's are the only thing that come close in my opinion, but again, they just don't have the same bite, flexible stem, head width, etc. Still the fact is, I am TESTING the crap out of my aliens now, before I commit to anything where I risk groundfall, like a crucial 2nd piece.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 21, 2009, 5:07 PM
Post #96 of 747
(11387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
adatesman wrote: The thing is that the brazing process is done by hand and is highly dependent on the skill of the operator. Too much heat, you've embrittled the cable. Too little heat, you get a poor bond. Forget the flux, you have a contaminated joint that didn't bond well. Don't put enough braze in, you won't have much of a bond. Up late the night before and possibly hungover, any and all could happen. The only way to control this IMO is 100% inspection.
I may have missed it in one of the many discussions but do you know if anyone has directly asked CCH what percentage of the new units they test?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 5:13 PM
Post #97 of 747
(11374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
tigerlilly
May 21, 2009, 5:19 PM
Post #98 of 747
(11355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 564
|
Sogdiana wrote: Startup companies can make just copies of Aliens and one of these may have asked Aric to do this test and publish to cause more trouble for CCH.
What a crock of crap.
I sent in the Red Alien because it was a bootied cam with some broken filaments in the main cable. I expected it to break at something less than spec since obviously, it had led a busy life. I was curious to relate visible damage to some empirical measure of reduced strength. That it was an Alien never factored into my thought process. Having the cable pull out of the head due to poor brazing never entered my imagination. The data is the data and is fact. It is not contrived for the purpose of making anyone look bad. Neither I nor Aric are looking to crucify CCH needlessly. There is no conspiracy here.
The truth about Alien bashing is that most folks really, really and truely want them to be good, reliable gear, self included. They are a good design that does what they do as well or better than other options. If they did not, they would have been a bad memory a long, long time ago. It is mind boggling, in a sport where safety and reliability of gear are paramount, in the USA (land of litigation), that no one has sued CCH out of existance, or that climbers have simply voted them out of existance with their dollars. The only folks who might be upset by CCH employing good quality control practices might be their competitors, who would lose more sales if Aliens ever re-establish a reputation for reliablilty.
Kathy
|
|
|
|
|
colatownkid
May 21, 2009, 5:21 PM
Post #99 of 747
(11409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512
|
Sogdiana wrote: The history of this cams is completely unknown. You can see from the photos, they have been in use for years... I think this is not "independent" test, this is a really "special order" against CCH, another series "lets bash CCH". I love my Aliens and I trust them!!!! I think they are the best!!! Startup companies can make just copies of Aliens and one of these may have asked Aric to do this test and publish to cause more trouble for CCH.
I find this post painful and I hope you are a troll.
In Aric's defense, there is no question in my mind regarding his integrity. Aric consistently provides useful, pertinent information, thoughtful posts and replies, and is very clear to differentiate test results, conclusions, personal opinions, and idle speculation. I believe his previous battery of pull tests speak for themselves. I see no reason to distrust t Aric unless you can substantiate your accusation in some way.
As for this:
In reply to: The history of this cams is completely unknown. You can see from the photos, they have been in use for years...
I find that point quite debatable. You are correct in that the history of this cam is unknown, but as for years of use...? That is a large assumption. I think it would be fair to say the cam has been used (as per tigerlilly's brief history), but for how long is completely speculation.
You are free to believe what you will about Aliens and CCH. However, I feel it is decidedly rude to accuse Aric of foul play.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 5:24 PM
Post #100 of 747
(11397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
