|
IsayAutumn
May 22, 2009, 3:52 PM
Post #202 of 747
(8146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
adatesman wrote: Further note- Sogdiana has been unbanned from The Lab. We kicked it around in the Mod forum and technically he/she did nothing against the rules.
No kidding. This was a blatant misuse of authority. IMO The Lab has lost a lot of credibility over this entire issue.
Sogdiana was guilty of a lot of things, but nothing to get him/her banned. Also, (again, in my humble opinion) the willingness to so quickly expel someone from a thread who was trying to (poorly) argue with some, frankly, questionable assumptions being thrown around betrays some kind of ulterior motive or bias.
Maybe the rules of The Lab forbid questioning the posts within it? If so, that seems like a terrible waste. I like hearing about these things, but I also like to hear a voice of dissent, even if it is borderline moronic.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 22, 2009, 3:55 PM
Post #203 of 747
(8141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 22, 2009, 3:59 PM
Post #205 of 747
(8132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
May 22, 2009, 4:09 PM
Post #208 of 747
(8107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
IsayAutumn wrote: No kidding. This was a blatant misuse of authority. IMO The Lab has lost a lot of credibility over this entire issue.
I don't see, in the then current situation, how banning a user using a false name to directly attack someone with some pretty serious allegations (Saying Aric was paid off by other companies etc.), in a weak attempt to defend themselves doesn't warrant a time out. please note that, as Aric said, this is no longer the current situation, so the time out has been removed
Seems like the right course of action to me.
I see no loss of credibility. Using IP sniffers is de rigor in online forum moderating, and has been for some time (hell, I got 3 perma-banned accounts from a one website due to a single post).
It's unfortunate that the confusion that arose caused such a serious allegation against CCH seem carved in rock, but such is the nature of the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
ckirkwood9
May 22, 2009, 4:23 PM
Post #209 of 747
(8073 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: a few cut strands won't impact strength too much. But it doesn't work that way with metal. As soon as a couple strands are broken ... it sets up a cascade failure ... and would likely happen in a lot of other products besides CCH.
This thought presents an opportunity for an interesting test: A destructo-test of cams with partially severed cables.
It would be interesting to see this done with a good sampling of cams across all manufacturers.... MAYBE we can cajole Mountain Gear into doing it!!! (didn't they do the original random testing of aliens during the big recall?)
I remember reading the results of this kind of test done with various types of webbing (some with very questionable histories). not sure who did it, but it's posted somewhere in rc.com's archives. The VERY interesting thing about this test was the REALLY OLD weathered nylon webbing that was cut off a tree at some random crag broke JUST UNDER the rated strength for NEW webbing!
Just a note: I love my aliens, still climb on ~ and have taken falls on a few of them. Of course that doesn't prove anything.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 22, 2009, 4:30 PM
Post #210 of 747
(8059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 22, 2009, 4:35 PM
Post #211 of 747
(8047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
patto wrote: This thread didn't start off as an attack on CCH and none of us want it seen as such.
BS, the very title of this thread is an attack on the company. It is not truly a safety alert affecting one company's products. Aric hasn't supported his case that there is a real danger to climbers from pre-recall Aliens. Of course, now he will ban me for not taking his word as gospel. But the reality is this is just another RC.com hatchet job.
Can anyone point to a single case of this particular type of failure occurring with units that did not have cut cables? Yes, there have been lots of other problems post-recall and their communication is atrocious. But more than a single cam with known problems breaking is required to mandate a total recall like the safety police are crying about.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
May 22, 2009, 4:39 PM
Post #212 of 747
(8035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
No clue, sorry
|
|
|
|
|
wolfdog
May 22, 2009, 4:41 PM
Post #213 of 747
(8030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2007
Posts: 33
|
I think this whole post and the post on Supertopo is BS. Where is the validity in using used gear with unknown history for your tests? USED GEAR OF UNKNOWN HISTORY AND PROVENANCE. WHO KNOWS WHAT IT HAS BEEN THRU OR WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO IT PRIOR. THESE ARE YOUR TEST SAMPLES? YOU WENT TO ALL THIS WORK TO DO ALL THIS TESTING AND YOU USED OLD OBVIOUSLY DAMAGED ALIENS FOR YOUR TESTING. WHAT THE f*&%???
The question I have is why? Why damaged used gear to test. If you are going to slander a companies product you better set some valid parameters dude.
As a manufacturing engineer, I call BS on all your results. Delete your obviously biased posts, and test some NEW GEAR and then lets see the results. Otherwise, none of these results can be held up as represenative of buying a new Alien. AS NO ONE KNOWS WHAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO YOU GETTING THEM. Sounds like a rigged deal to me as it makes no sense to publish results on used damaged gear as if that is somehow reflective of new product.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 22, 2009, 4:41 PM
Post #214 of 747
(8029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tipton
May 22, 2009, 4:41 PM
Post #215 of 747
(8026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2007
Posts: 272
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: patto wrote: This thread didn't start off as an attack on CCH and none of us want it seen as such. BS, the very title of this thread is an attack on the company. It is not truly a safety alert affecting one company's products. Aric hasn't supported his case that there is a real danger to climbers from pre-recall Aliens. Of course, now he will ban me for not taking his word as gospel. But the reality is this is just another RC.com hatchet job. Can anyone point to a single case of this particular type of failure occurring with units that did not have cut cables? Yes, there have been lots of other problems post-recall and their communication is atrocious. But more than a single cam with known problems breaking is required to mandate a total recall like the safety police are crying about.
Stop being a jackass. No one is crying for a total recall, we just want them to take some action other than blatant denial. If they responded in a manner which was suitable to this community (like OP or MalDaly) then this wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
May 22, 2009, 4:43 PM
Post #216 of 747
(8021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: patto wrote: This thread didn't start off as an attack on CCH and none of us want it seen as such. BS, the very title of this thread is an attack on the company. It is not truly a safety alert affecting one company's products. Aric hasn't supported his case that there is a real danger to climbers from pre-recall Aliens. Of course, now he will ban me for not taking his word as gospel. But the reality is this is just another RC.com hatchet job. Can anyone point to a single case of this particular type of failure occurring with units that did not have cut cables? Yes, there have been lots of other problems post-recall and their communication is atrocious. But more than a single cam with known problems breaking is required to mandate a total recall like the safety police are crying about.
Listen, I'm not taking sides here, and the material sciences being talked about here is WAY over my head. That being said, I feel I am relatively bright and can follow a conversation.
It is my understanding that the failure on the red alien would have been of a different mode had the problem been the cut cables as opposed to the bad braze job. And further more, that the appearance of a bad braze could NOT have been influenced by either cut cables, time, weathering, etc.
This would mean that the failure mode of the red alien would, much more likely than not, have been the same had the cables been fully intact yet the braze had been of the same quality.
Some have talked hypothetically about what would have happened if the braze had been done correctly yet the cables were cut, but this speculation (though interesting) is not relevant to the discussion about the failure of the tested red alien. For again, the failure mode points to a bad braze (which was later visually confirmed by opening the joint) and that failure mode is such that it should be unaffected by a few cut cables.
Now, if I have this understanding wrong, PLEASE correct me. Like I said, this is just what my un-trained though logically/scientifically apt mind came up with....
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 22, 2009, 4:44 PM
Post #217 of 747
(8018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
May 22, 2009, 4:45 PM
Post #218 of 747
(8011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tipton
May 22, 2009, 4:47 PM
Post #219 of 747
(8002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2007
Posts: 272
|
wolfdog wrote: I think this whole post and the post on Supertopo is BS. Where is the validity in using used gear with unknown history for your tests? USED GEAR OF UNKNOWN HISTORY AND PROVENANCE. WHO KNOWS WHAT IT HAS BEEN THRU OR WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO IT PRIOR. THESE ARE YOUR TEST SAMPLES? YOU WENT TO ALL THIS WORK TO DO ALL THIS TESTING AND YOU USED OLD OBVIOUSLY DAMAGED ALIENS FOR YOUR TESTING. WHAT THE f*&%??? The question I have is why? Why damaged used gear to test. If you are going to slander a companies product you better set some valid parameters dude. As a manufacturing engineer, I call BS on all your results. Delete your obviously biased posts, and test some NEW GEAR and then lets see the results. Otherwise, none of these results can be held up as represenative of buying a new Alien. AS NO ONE KNOWS WHAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO YOU GETTING THEM. Sounds like a rigged deal to me as it makes no sense to publish results on used damaged gear as if that is somehow reflective of new product.
Want to make a bet? I'll buy 5 new Aliens and Aric can pull them to obliteration. If any one of the 5 fails under the rated strength, then you buy me a full set of c3s and master cams. If they pass, then I'll buy you a full set of Aliens (excluding Offset).
This will solve several issues, we will get to nuke some new Aliens, I'll get some new cams, and you'll shut up.
Let me know if you're game.
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
May 22, 2009, 4:51 PM
Post #220 of 747
(7993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
Tipton wrote: roy_hinkley_jr wrote: patto wrote: This thread didn't start off as an attack on CCH and none of us want it seen as such. BS, the very title of this thread is an attack on the company. It is not truly a safety alert affecting one company's products. Aric hasn't supported his case that there is a real danger to climbers from pre-recall Aliens. Of course, now he will ban me for not taking his word as gospel. But the reality is this is just another RC.com hatchet job. Can anyone point to a single case of this particular type of failure occurring with units that did not have cut cables? Yes, there have been lots of other problems post-recall and their communication is atrocious. But more than a single cam with known problems breaking is required to mandate a total recall like the safety police are crying about. Stop being a jackass. No one is crying for a total recall, we just want them to take some action other than blatant denial. If they responded in a manner which was suitable to this community (like OP or MalDaly) then this wouldn't be an issue.
He's not being a jackass. He's calling into question this spurious test on busted gear of unknown origin; the way in which the results were posted in this thread; and the fact that the OP has banned someone who, at the time, was one of the few who were voicing their disagreement with the way in which he has done things.
I don't blame CCH for not responding. This is a no win for them.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
May 22, 2009, 4:53 PM
Post #221 of 747
(7991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
adatesman wrote: altelis wrote: roy_hinkley_jr wrote: patto wrote: This thread didn't start off as an attack on CCH and none of us want it seen as such. BS, the very title of this thread is an attack on the company. It is not truly a safety alert affecting one company's products. Aric hasn't supported his case that there is a real danger to climbers from pre-recall Aliens. Of course, now he will ban me for not taking his word as gospel. But the reality is this is just another RC.com hatchet job. Can anyone point to a single case of this particular type of failure occurring with units that did not have cut cables? Yes, there have been lots of other problems post-recall and their communication is atrocious. But more than a single cam with known problems breaking is required to mandate a total recall like the safety police are crying about. Listen, I'm not taking sides here, and the material sciences being talked about here is WAY over my head. That being said, I feel I am relatively bright and can follow a conversation. It is my understanding that the failure on the red alien would have been of a different mode had the problem been the cut cables as opposed to the bad braze job. And further more, that the appearance of a bad braze could NOT have been influenced by either cut cables, time, weathering, etc. This would mean that the failure mode of the red alien would, much more likely than not, have been the same had the cables been fully intact yet the braze had been of the same quality. Some have talked hypothetically about what would have happened if the braze had been done correctly yet the cables were cut, but this speculation (though interesting) is not relevant to the discussion about the failure of the tested red alien. For again, the failure mode points to a bad braze (which was later visually confirmed by opening the joint) and that failure mode is such that it should be unaffected by a few cut cables. Now, if I have this understanding wrong, PLEASE correct me. Like I said, this is just what my un-trained though logically/scientifically apt mind came up with.... Can't correct you as you're 100% right. 
Well, as exciting as it is to be right ( ) that makes the problem that much scarier. That means that there is NO test (save pulling to failure, or a history of catching high kN falls) that would ensure an alien is safe. You can't visually inspect it, b/c even if it looks good the problem could be w/in the joint. You can't count on "history" (save for clear negative occurrences) b/c even if it has a "clean" history but hasn't caught any high kN falls, the braze, which is invisible without damaging the unit, could be bad.
Truly a shame.
And not that it matters what I think, I just like to state for the record that CCH's response is almost as scary/disconcerning as the failures themselves. Almost.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
May 22, 2009, 4:54 PM
Post #222 of 747
(7985 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
IsayAutumn wrote: Tipton wrote: roy_hinkley_jr wrote: patto wrote: This thread didn't start off as an attack on CCH and none of us want it seen as such. BS, the very title of this thread is an attack on the company. It is not truly a safety alert affecting one company's products. Aric hasn't supported his case that there is a real danger to climbers from pre-recall Aliens. Of course, now he will ban me for not taking his word as gospel. But the reality is this is just another RC.com hatchet job. Can anyone point to a single case of this particular type of failure occurring with units that did not have cut cables? Yes, there have been lots of other problems post-recall and their communication is atrocious. But more than a single cam with known problems breaking is required to mandate a total recall like the safety police are crying about. Stop being a jackass. No one is crying for a total recall, we just want them to take some action other than blatant denial. If they responded in a manner which was suitable to this community (like OP or MalDaly) then this wouldn't be an issue. He's not being a jackass. He's calling into question this spurious test on busted gear of unknown origin; the way in which the results were posted in this thread; and the fact that the OP has banned someone who, at the time, was one of the few who were voicing their disagreement with the way in which he has done things. I don't blame CCH for not responding. This is a no win for them.
To see why he is in deed being a jackass, read my summation of the problem a few posts up.
|
|
|
|
|
wolfdog
May 22, 2009, 5:01 PM
Post #223 of 747
(7974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2007
Posts: 33
|
Old gear out in circulation found to have defects. and that is worthy of posting a defamatory post becasue...?
I thought your whole issue was with MANUFACTURING DEFECTS. My whole point is that you can prove nothing by testing used gear of unknown origin and you are somehow trying to sidestep the issue. All your tests are invalid because you are using gear of unknown origin and history, THATS MY POINT DUDE!
Man up, test some new Aliens and see what happens, add some validity to your testing.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
May 22, 2009, 5:04 PM
Post #224 of 747
(7941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
wolfdog wrote: Old gear out in circulation found to have defects. and that is worthy of posting a defamatory post becasue...? I thought your whole issue was with MANUFACTURING DEFECTS. My whole point is that you can prove nothing by testing used gear of unknown origin and you are somehow trying to sidestep the issue. All your tests are invalid because you are using gear of unknown origin and history, THATS MY POINT DUDE! Man up, test some new Aliens and see what happens, add some validity to your testing.
as i said before, if you need a clearer, less techy explanation as to why this is actually a big deal, see my post above giving a summation about why the cut cables/unknown history are irrelevant and why this was clearly a case of manufacturing defect. and again how the history and cut cables don't/can't mask that issue...
|
|
|
|
|
Tipton
May 22, 2009, 5:08 PM
Post #225 of 747
(7932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2007
Posts: 272
|
wolfdog wrote: Old gear out in circulation found to have defects. and that is worthy of posting a defamatory post becasue...? I thought your whole issue was with MANUFACTURING DEFECTS. My whole point is that you can prove nothing by testing used gear of unknown origin and you are somehow trying to sidestep the issue. All your tests are invalid because you are using gear of unknown origin and history, THATS MY POINT DUDE! Man up, test some new Aliens and see what happens, add some validity to your testing.
You man up, take my bet, and we'll test some new Aliens. Or don't. We know what would have happened anyway, and I'd be happy with my new cams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
