Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 12:55am PT
|
That's really freakin' odd how those broke similiar to another one of the recent failures. Either the cable was barely inserted into the fitting or there's some other kind of odd metallurgical thing going on... I'd have to guess it was barely inserted though. How is that even possible though unless the guy doing the brazing was a complete idiot.
I'd love to cut those fittings open and see if there's any cable inside..
I wonder what overheating stainless steel cable (say white-hot) and then a fast cold quench would do to it? Might that embrittle cable to a great degree?
In any case it really doesn't matter anymore....
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 01:18am PT
|
I have to agree with JLP. wrapping a cord around the head like that is not going to result in the same stress that a fall on a properly placed cam would...
Maybe if you wrapped two cords of exactly the same length each one side of stem, it would come closer...
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 08:51am PT
|
The Yellow one in the photo showing the test procedure did not break at 1200lbs.
26 other cams tested this way did not break.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 09:47am PT
|
"The Yellow one in the photo showing the test procedure did not break at 1200lbs."
I can only see one yellow alien in your photos and it did break.
How much did you pull the other cams to?
I am also sceptical about the testing method. It is possibly that the load on a couple of the cams became to one side and loaded the cable/stem uneven compared to the other cams. Impossibly to say without seeing it though.
Aliens has lost a lot of crediablity though and the best option would probably that someone took over the production.
|
|
Holdplease2
Big Wall climber
Yosemite area
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 09:59am PT
|
I volunteer all 100+ of my BD/Metolius/DMM/Wild Country/Omega Pacific cams for "WRAPPED IN A SLING" head testing that resulted in the alien failures.
Its the only fair thing to do, right?
According to the folks at CCH, these cams will be failing left and right, as well. THOUGH I'M NOT A PHYSICIST, I THINK THAT THIS IS BULLSH#T and am happy to volunteer my stuff for testing.
Russ? Proof of concept opportunity? Or someone else that I trust to, um, actually send the stuff back to me?
-Kate.
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 10:05am PT
|
Raymond: Classic internet. You are telling me, the person who did the test, what happened in a photo.
The yellow cam shown being pulled did not break. It is a different cam than the yellow one shown broken. (I have tested more cams than in the attached photos).
All of the cams were pulled to 1200-1300 lbs. This is scary since there is a 1200lbs. failure. This means I could still have some on my rack that could fail.
Anyway, I have done my "moral duty".
Be safe everybody.
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 10:08am PT
|
Kate,
I will pull em and give them back. I have plenty of BD ans will offer them to the test but would be happy to pull the Mets for a control group.
I will send them back, I do not need anybody elses gear on my rack.
Send me an email.
Cheers,
Jay
EDIT: Kate, you show location of Yosemite. If that is the case, I will be in Yosemite this weekend. We can do the test together at the park.
Let me know.
Jay
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 10:22am PT
|
Sorry if I was misstaken. You tested 12 cams and show a picture with 12 cams. Now you say that you didn't test those 12 cams. What sizes did you actually test?
You perform a test with clearly put a bending force at a joint. 2 of 12 fail close to the max load. I dont belive that the 10 cams that passed the test show that the test is a relevant test. The main reason for this is the small load difference and the possibilty for different bending loading for different cams.
The other strange thing is that the cams broke at a different place and for a different reason than in Russ test. Is this the only cams that have broken at that location?
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 10:33am PT
|
I wonder what overheating stainless steel cable (say white-hot) and then a fast cold quench would do to it? Might that embrittle cable to a great degree?
302/304 stainless steel (most cable is this type) does not form martensite, the really hard and brittle phase that forms in tool steel, 400-series stainless, etc., when heated and quenched. 302/304 can't be heat-treated that way, and would not become brittle.
Oddly enough, heating and quenching is how you anneal (soften) 304 stainless. It's basically relieves cold-work hardening.
Enough time under a flame, in an oxygen environment, would dramatically reduce the strength of the cable.
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 10:39am PT
|
Raymond, this type of nonsense is why people like Dave at CCH do not post on these forums.
READ THE POSTS!
Look at the edit Russ added to the very first post.
READ my post. I have tested 26 cams and I NEVER said I did not test the 12 in the photo. The 12 in the photo were tested.
Now please, go away. I love Aliens too. I want them to be perfect or tolerable. I climbed on some last weekend. I expect you want them to be good too and that is where the attack from you is coming from.
Relax man. I am not saying burn the company.
Your comments are why I did not post this in the past. If somebody was hurt and I held the info secret, I would punish myself for life.
I see a possible duplicate of my failure in the Sauders Crack cam.
Now, I have given the info and the photos. If you feel it is a bad test because of the orientation of the pull. That is fine. I would also reccomend you look at the pull of your placements and see if there is a similarity to the photo. I also say 1300lbs. is a low number of failure, but hey thats me.
One of things I love about climbing is accountability. If you choose to climb on suspect gear and get hurt, that is your problem. If you put 1 piece of gear between you and the deck, that is your call and your problem.
I have pushed limits with experimental gear and that was my call, my problem.
Now, make your own call about all gear you own / use. It is a decision you live and die with.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 10:51am PT
|
"Raymond, this type of nonsense is why people like Dave at CCH do not post on these forums."
I'm guessing hacks pull testing cams with their cars, their anvils, their car jacks, and coming to untrained and blind conclusions may be another reason.
As for your cams, they were all obviously loaded very differently. No repeatability. You have no idea what stress you were applying to the joint. I would not send you my cams, if I had any value for my life.
JLP
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:09am PT
|
Sorry that I thought it should be the latest 12 cams you showed in your photo.
You are extemely defensive about your test. There are a lot of crap written on the internet and people shouldn't take other peoples conclusions as given. I much agree with JLP above.
It might be an ok test but it is possibly that the cams are loaded in the wrong way and it is thus difficult to draw any conclusion about the test.
I belive that it is difficult to load a cam in that way when climbing. The only possibility is over an edge but the edge needs to be very close to the head of the cam. It is also nothing strange if a cam over an edge brake below the rated load.
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2007 - 11:10am PT
|
What a load of malarkey. Claiming that the test method is putting unrealistic forces on the head of the cams is hooey. If you plug a cam into a crack while climbing, I would say that 80% of the placements will put an even greater stress angle on the loaded cam. If the only way the heads are going to stay on Aliens is in a lab, under perfect pull scenarios, then what good are they? The numbers are just too low for any reasonable safety margin, regardless of pull angle.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:20am PT
|
Russ - I agree the failures are disconcerting and likely duplicate the failure at Sauder's, but I disagree that you have any knowledge of "the numbers" based on these test methods and equipement.
I've seen WC flex friends that have failed in a very similar way. Maybe the way we test and validate cams needs to change to account for not pointing exactly in the right direction of pull, or for only 2 lobes catching.
JLP
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:31am PT
|
From what I've witnessed watching people placing cams including aliens they are never really placed without some angle involved.
There will always be some bend if they are loaded during aid or in the event of a fall.
I like the bend test better as it may be a more real world realistic test. Just my hunch.
For now if your first piece off the ground requires an alien size maybe place a different type cam for peace of mind?
I've had many old and suspect units on my rack at various times and was careful at what places and time I used them. Not that this solves any problems but can help.
Also I've noticed over the years that people actually climb until they fall. People are really climbing and relying more than ever on gear now.
Maybe the gear is being stressed more than ever?
But what do I know, these are just some of my observations.
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2007 - 11:33am PT
|
Sure, change the tests for gear to real world tests. Imagine if I made a product like a sling or some webbed widget and tested it over a 4" diameter pipe and got a 3000lb breaking strength. But, this widget is used out at the crags to girth through bolt hangers and is now failing at 800lbs..... that would be a problem.
As for me not knowing the "numbers" I think you are flat wrong. I have seen the angle of pull, and have seen the failure, and am satisfied that it very closely mimics anything I might encounter in climbing.
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:36am PT
|
Sorry for the defense. This is why I did not want to do this on the web back when I did the test.
FYI: I am nearly done (3 weeks late) with a proper pull machine with an adjustable crack. The problem is what Russ said. The numbers are low, and perfect straight pulls are rare in climbing.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 11:49am PT
|
Russ - don't mean to argue, but the number you see on the gage is only one dimension of the stress applied, and it is not repeatable, nor comparable to any standard test. As bending is added, the internal stresses can more than double. This test to me looks more severe than anything one would see while out climbing as it restricts the head from rotating. To use your example, when was the last time you slung the head of your cam like this and fell on it?
I don't disagree with the gist of your point, though, that it seems this thing should be withstanding higher forces. However, to be fair with this "new" test, shouldn't we be applying the same test to comparable cams?
JLP
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2007 - 12:04pm PT
|
This test to me looks more severe than anything one would see while out climbing as it restricts the head from rotating.
Obviously we are not seeing the same thing. I see a LESS severe angle. As for the head rotating.... man, we are sure counting on a lot of internal crack rotation to make these things hold falls. This is a low percentage ploy, and with the popularity of Aliens for pinscars, rotation will be minimal to non existent. Cracks ain't always that deep to allow rotation, and if the head does indeed get to rotate during the fall, the ending angle will still be less than the angle I have seen in the tests.
I understand the angle:force argument and agree. I just don't see it in this test set up. If I get time I'll go pull some old WC Friends. Got beers that says the heads don't pop off... any takers?
|
|
Murf
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007 - 12:21pm PT
|
The truly fantastic thing about this whole "angle of load" is that, if true, it negates one of the best properties of the cam. You can't talk about Aliens without bringing up pin scars ( esp. when on ST, Yosemite central ). Explain to me how an Alien in a pin scar doesn't practically require "off angle" load to the fall? How many pin scar falls do you think properly produced Aliens have held?
Russ - I'll finance any other cam pull test up to twelve beers ( and good beer too ).
Murf
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!