|
colatownkid
May 21, 2009, 5:29 PM
Post #101 of 747
(9012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512
|
adatesman wrote: Hey Guys, Thanks for the kind words, but I responded directly to Sogdiana upthread and its best to let this die. I believe its either a troll or possibly a CCH shill. -aric.
Must've missed that--sorry! But yeah, sure thing.
|
|
|
|
|
iron106
May 21, 2009, 6:06 PM
Post #102 of 747
(8963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2008
Posts: 213
|
These pull tests are great. However, I would be interested in how an Alien from the store would do. This would leave less to the imagination. I would throw in $2 (along with everybody else) and get Aric some money to get some samples from store bought ones in for his testing.
BTW I love my Aliens.
|
|
|
|
|
lightrack
May 21, 2009, 6:08 PM
Post #103 of 747
(8956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 3, 2003
Posts: 46
|
Cams break......aliens are always bashed on.....
i still use mine
a good friend of mine broke 3 brand new C4's already this season, yet there is never a bash thread on BD's
the heads simply crushed on a 3 meter fall
|
|
|
|
|
Sogdiana
May 21, 2009, 6:23 PM
Post #104 of 747
(8928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2009
Posts: 4
|
Aric,
if you would like to answer to me, please, answer. I have just one question" who paid you for this test? Be honest with people.
I am brand new user here... Thanks for warm atmosphere!
This is really nice of you
But if she is working for CCH, it does not give you a point to talk about this girl here.
I did not asked you about your degree, I am not interesting. But thanks for answer.
So, Like I said early, I am using and will use my Aliens, and I do not think that I can continue this conversation with you. Looks like you never used Aliens for climbing. You just using gears to brake, but if you want to brake some thing you will brake it. And, this is of course my own opinion, this test does not looks professional to me, I am sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
May 21, 2009, 7:08 PM
Post #113 of 747
(8806 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
This sucks, and is not a surprise.
I worked there in 2000. I just sat around and sanded burs off parts after they came out of the machine. If I so much as got an extra scratch on the parts, they got tossed and I got bitched at. It was amazing the level of scrutiny each and every part in the process underwent.
Now, unhardened axles are coming out of the shop.
For the red, that's also fairly surprising because it was assembled during a time that I'd assumed had the same scrutiny as the time I worked there.
I know I've weighted all my aliens and I also have whipped on most of them. I've probably whipped on all of them but who knows, it's hard to say exactly which piece did what when you've got 6 or 7 identical pieces in some sizes.
I think I may test mine. Sure they've been a lot of places and have had harder use than the purple that Nadia ripped you over but I don't really know if I've generated over 5kn on them. I haven't read the whole thread, would you consider a CCH pull test good enough or should I find a third party test?
|
|
|
|
|
afahrlan
May 21, 2009, 7:09 PM
Post #114 of 747
(8804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2008
Posts: 7
|
lightrack wrote: I think one fall was a 30 footer....kinda big and the other two were 3 meter falls!! and he's a small dude (130 lbs). piece just below the feet... i didn't witness the events as they happened in Norway...
Contrast your description of the "kinda big" falls you "think" your friend took but that you didn't witness with the well-documented testing that Aric presented above. When someone pull tests a 0.75 Camalot under public scrutiny and it fails well below its rated load, there will be a huge response from the community. (And from Black Diamond.)
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
Sogdiana
May 21, 2009, 7:09 PM
Post #115 of 747
(8803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2009
Posts: 4
|
PS.
Aric, I am not dive up, just do not have time spend all day long next to computer screen. 
I know if I would give us it would be a big reason for you to call me "troll" 
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 21, 2009, 7:11 PM
Post #116 of 747
(8797 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
angry wrote: I haven't read the whole thread, would you consider a CCH pull test good enough or should I find a third party test?
I know you're asking Aric, but personally, if you're going to have them tested, it would be nice to know what a third party says. I know that's not your goal, for our conversation's sake, but it could still do some good to report back what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
May 21, 2009, 7:12 PM
Post #117 of 747
(8791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Sogdiana wrote: Aric, I dont know who Nadia is. Maybe we have same stile of writing, because we are both from foreign countries (Nadia - is not original American name, right?, and I am guessing he is originally from USA), and English actually is not my native language, I am sorry for my mistakes. But, I probably have to call to CCH and talk to this girl.... But if she is working for CCH, it does not give you a point to talk about this girl here. I did not asked you about your degree, I am not interesting. But thanks for answer. So, Like I said early, I am using and will use my Aliens, and I do not think that I can continue this conversation with you. Looks like you never used Aliens for climbing. You just using gears to brake, but if you want to brake some thing you will brake it. And, this is of course my own opinion, this test does not looks professional to me, I am sorry.
I have probably 25 aliens. Some have held whipped of close to 50 feet for me. They see probably 100 days of use a year and have for a long time. I love them, I'm glad I have them, and I will continue to use them.
Aric is right though, his methods were fine given the sample size, and there is a very real problem he's pointing out yet again. Just because you love something, you don't need to defend it's faults (cams not women, story of my life).
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 21, 2009, 7:16 PM
Post #118 of 747
(8781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
adatesman wrote: cracklover wrote: 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. We don't know this to be the case yet. It is a suspicion of mine, but until I get the testing done it is completely speculation on my part.
If I had more data to show that the axles were consistently bad, it would be higher than # 3 on my list. But it is a real concern to me. Concern being the operative word. Who wouldn't be concerned that axles may deform terribly below the rated strength of the cam?
In reply to: cracklover wrote: 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 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).
I read that too. And frankly, I don't put much credence into a second-hand report of a drunken conversation of an ex-worker at the shop. But to be perfectly frank, I'm not that curious to know the details as to why the lobes are under spec for hardness, as I don't see it as a bug, but a feature.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 7:22 PM
Post #119 of 747
(8769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 7:34 PM
Post #120 of 747
(8739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
May 21, 2009, 7:38 PM
Post #121 of 747
(8724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
I don't know Aric, but from what I've read here and in other threads, I agree that he probably has no agenda (although he has stated that he doesn't trust CCH, so he can't really be called unbiased). But the fact remains, Aric cannot say for sure what the history of either of these cams is. Even the one he bought could have a history that the seller isn't wiling to confide, for any number of reasons.
And if he is going to put himself out there and post these results then he has to be willing to take any criticisms that come his way, even if they are poorly argued. The damage that he is doing to the name of CCH in this thread alone is quite high, given the small sample and unknown history of these cams.
I doubt there was anything wrong with his testing. I doubt he did this for any reasons other than pure curiosity. But a bootied cam? I dunno ... the consequences of this thread seem pretty real considering the pieces tested.
That said, the results are still spooky, even given the unknown history of the cams. I do think it is a good idea to do some testing on new Aliens. I would gladly contribute some dinero if we could get something going.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 7:39 PM
Post #122 of 747
(8723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 21, 2009, 7:44 PM
Post #123 of 747
(8704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
(This post was edited by adatesman on Aug 16, 2010, 12:41 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
May 21, 2009, 7:47 PM
Post #124 of 747
(8770 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
IsayAutumn wrote: I don't know Aric, but from what I've read here and in other threads, I agree that he probably has no agenda (although he has stated that he doesn't trust CCH, so he can't really be called unbiased). But the fact remains, Aric cannot say for sure what the history of either of these cams is. Even the one he bought could have a history that the seller isn't wiling to confide, for any number of reasons. And if he is going to put himself out there and post these results then he has to be willing to take any criticisms that come his way, even if they are poorly argued. The damage that he is doing to the name of CCH in this thread alone is quite high, given the small sample and unknown history of these cams. I doubt there was anything wrong with his testing. I doubt he did this for any reasons other than pure curiosity. But a bootied cam? I dunno ... the consequences of this thread seem pretty real considering the pieces tested. That said, the results are still spooky, even given the unknown history of the cams. I do think it is a good idea to do some testing on new Aliens. I would gladly contribute some dinero if we could get something going.
I don't care if the cam sat in the rain 4 years, was run over by a Mack truck, and thrown off a cliff. The braze appears to be bad from the factory, period.
|
|
|
|
|
donald949
May 21, 2009, 7:49 PM
Post #125 of 747
(8759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11455
|
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
Seconded,
Thanks Aric.
Nice write up and good job pointing out soldering problem. But have to say Gabe's discription and reposting the one photo with the inside cable still attached brought the idea home.
Don
|
|
|
|
|
|
