Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2007 - 05:54pm PT
|
Creetur et al:
Full diclosure edit: I do not own any Aliens, save for one.
In my opinion, Aliens are still fine to use IF THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED. I would like to have them tested by someone outside of CCH. This is not to say that Aliens tested by CCH are in any way substandard, but I like some separation between manufacturer and tester when my life depends on it. There is a lot at stake on both sides and some outside testing and a real data release would go a long way.
Just have all your units tested and then go climbing..... no worries.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 06:02pm PT
|
Russ - I agree with your latter post with the bounce testing. I would not agree with hammer testing (I thought hammer = funkness?), as I think the loads can get way too high and damage things.
But, since pull testing these Aliens is free, with on-the-spot repair/replacement of failures by CCH...is there really any reason not to go this route?
If I had a cam with a date stamp in the recall range, I'd simplify things by just heading over to REI.
Thanks for the original post, and your time spent, BTW. Very good stuff.
JLP
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 06:05pm PT
|
It's worth noting that this failed unit is within the range of dates that CCH says should be tested.
C3s look better than other solutions but I don't think they have hybrids and they aren't as flexible, nor do they have 4 cams. Close but no Cigar.
Aliens still rule for aid and pin scars. Otherwise I'd use something else
peace
karl
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2007 - 06:13pm PT
|
Seems there are two types of recall with these cams: One by the CPSC (?) and one by a post on Mountain Project.
It seems that the "real" recall is for dimpled cams in the date period, and the Mountain Project post by CCH says all cams. hmmmmm.....
So, without really looking into it, only the DIMPLED cams are really under the recall umbrella. The other post is an addendum not filed with the CPSC.
|
|
feelio Babar
Trad climber
Sneaking up behind you...
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 06:48pm PT
|
Aliens are so homebrew, they had their time in the limelight as the coolest tiny units, but for me,all this sh#t is just the final nail in the Alien coffin..get some modern sh#t like c3's and have no fear.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 07:27pm PT
|
"if it breaks at X, then it pretty much breaks at X"
This is more or less true, but what's missing here are 2 things.
1) They are not using a hammer for their dynamic testing. A hammer would be more like shock or impulse testing.
2) During such shock or impulse testing, very high loads can transmit through the system and create invisible and/or unexpected damage, especially dependent on how the unit is fixtured.
You noticed also how BD mentioned the measurement and repeatability problems with dynamic testing? Impulse/shock testing is even worse.
The climber in me really likes your underlying idea - to take matters into hand as we do on the cliffs - but the engineer in me says this is not the right answer. I would recommend sending to manufacturer. They are the experts and will account for much more than a typical climber can think of. If one can't trust the manfacturer to return a "good" unit, then that person shouldn't be using their gear.
JLP
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2007 - 07:47pm PT
|
I agree JLP.... but.... here is the thing.... being climbers, they ain't gonna send their cams in for testing. No way. A field test would be much more to their liking.
The great mystery of this whole thing, that I think would be most interesting is:
How many cams were made in that period, and how many have been returned for testing. Care to guess??? If I was a betting man (wink) I would say that somewhere between 15-20% of the cams affected in the recall have now been tested. I might even go lower... so 80% of suspect cams are still out there. Whaddya think? How many people on here own them and have not sent them in? And remember these are people who are on here all the time and getting the most up to date info available. How about traveling climbers and non-internet climbers.... how would they even know? Even if it was published in the mags..... have you seen the circulation numbers lately?
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 07:49pm PT
|
"If one can't trust the manfacturer to return a "good" unit, then that person shouldn't be using their gear."
Therein lies the $1000 crux...and so many changes of heart wrt the answer.
Thanks for your insights into the engineering of these things and for taking the time to give us layfolks some of the pros and cons of homebrew testing.
|
|
Roman
Trad climber
DC
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 07:54pm PT
|
AC, I personally think you are cool and have never thought you to be the pest that some make you out to be and I know The Fish has given you sh#t before.... but for god sakes you come off as a bit of a wanker trying to razz him up while he is doing something beneficial to the community.
I'm sure to bean counters his 'weakest link' methodology is suspect but in the realm of common sense (the climbing world) it all makes good sense.
-
Just my $0.02
|
|
Roman
Trad climber
DC
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 07:57pm PT
|
JLP said:
"A hammer would be more like shock or impulse testing.
2) During such shock or impulse testing, very high loads can transmit through the system and create invisible and/or unexpected damage, especially dependent on how the unit is fixtured."
Is this not exactly what happens when we take a whip? (Note, I am not meaning to seem confrontational I am just a currious n00b)
|
|
Roman
Trad climber
DC
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 07:58pm PT
|
" I just hate to see good gear get slandered. "
Word. I bounce test the sh#t out of every C0 - C1 placement I make so I guess I am cool either way :)
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2007 - 08:00pm PT
|
Mike. : not really testing them... every once in a while, but I suggest sending them to CCH and hoping for the best.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 08:03pm PT
|
Is this not exactly what happens when we take a whip?
negative- whipping on the gear ought to be a somewhat dynamic load (although multiple variables exist), while slamming it w/ a funkness of some sort ought to be a comparatively static force.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 08:13pm PT
|
"being climbers, they ain't gonna send their cams in for testing"
Perhaps true - but how many are going to do your test?
All aside, these internet forums on the subject have been very interesting and educational, and have convinced me to send mine in to get tested. I'll use my old TCU's for a week or two while they are gone.
I sent a 00 (or whatever their smallest is called) in several years ago that had its lobes flattened out in a fall and was very impressed when they rebuilt the thing for free and had it back to me very quickly.
Kudos again for taking the time, Russ. Your effort appears to have found something not yet fully revealed to the public. Sounds like you got CCH's interest, as well as several climbers. Where will these cams be 6 months from now? I know CCH is working hard on this one - that or they are on their way out of business. Time will tell.
JLP
|
|
wiclimber
Trad climber
devil's lake, wi
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 08:20pm PT
|
CertifiedAlienTesting.com
Testing certified by the following international standards organizations:
ISO 9001
Six Sigma
QS2000
under construction, coming soon.
|
|
Scared Silly
Trad climber
UT
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 08:33pm PT
|
For many years ago REI did a lot of testing of gear. This was back when Cal Magnesum ran the QA department. Cal was an engineer for Boeing in the 70s and then got laided off. Jim Whitiker hired him. Years ago Cal allowed me to come up to do some testing on some ropes using their drop test apparatus. At the time it was the only one in the USA.
Within the USA REI is probably the best source for an independent test sans sending them to a qualified lab or getting a engineering student to runs somes tests as part of a project. Which what I did when I was working on my degree - I broke a bunch of gear. He he that was fun. A old friend does this with cars now, smashing Ford Explorers into walls.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 08:40pm PT
|
Radical, Russ's idea of using something with a known breaking strength might help quantify bounce-testing (set a lower limit on its strength).
Otherwise I would not bet that it would be easily repeatable across different individuals. A bounce-test is going to be dependent on your weight, the length of rope involved, its "stretchiness, how high you bounce, whether you are bouncing on aiders or a harness, etc.
All that said, I would not really want to bet that brazes are either 100% good or garbage. My guess is their quality fits some sort of distributional curve (bell?), but its breadth bothers me.
|
|
Loom
climber
The Whiteboard Jungle
|
|
|
May 15, 2007 - 08:43pm PT
|
Are you aid climbers or a bunch of queefin' pussies? Sheesh! You put the sh#t in the crack, stand up on the sh#t, repeat! What more do you need to know?
CCH -- putting the A4 back into C2 . . .
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!