Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Gear Lust / Lost & Found

Rave About Your Rack Please do not post retail SPAM.

Author

Best micro cam - morphed - Alien strength WARNING

patto

11-Jun-2009
11:23:45 AM

On 10/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>
>Checked out seppo climbing site, tests in steel crack (I saw 2, have more
>been done or is this the sample size?) show bending of axle and busting
>braze, there was some talk of slipping but I didn't see any vids (are they
>there?). Not sure I take this over my own, unscientific tests in rock cracks.
>The shit brazing job is bad, can't deny that and wouldn't try to. Hope
>there's serious quality control being added at CCH.

More recently a batch (9 i believe) brand new ones were pulled. Details have been outlined but a full report is still being trialed. Considering these QC issues have been going on for years despite being reported on, I'm not holding my breath on it.

>
>Look here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVODYx2dCQI&feature=related,
>to watch a BD camalot bust at 75% of rated strength (digi readout is in
>pounds). Camalots are therefore shit. Black Diamond's quality control is
>suspect, we cannot trust any of their products.........actually, watching
>this video did not make me worry at all about my camalots, maybe I don't
>worry enough.
Alien's QC issue extend well beyond just their failure strength. But that is besides the point. That BD was an old design and certainly breaking below strength isn't great. But I don't like dual stem camalots either and I prefer not to use them.

>
>I noticed you are leading the CCH witch hunt on that seppo site too. I've
>used all the brands I've talked about in order to form my opinions. How
>can you have an opinion about how aliens handle if you refuse to try them?
Lol you're alwfully generous saying im leading a witch hunt! I don't have a strong opinion of how they handle. But based on their displayed performance and QC issues I would want to handle them. Also I prefer the reassurance of smaller cam angles.

But yeah... I'll repeat what i said in the beginning. I didn't post here to argue about cam preferences. I think im done.


ajfclark

11-Jun-2009
11:29:37 AM

On 11/06/2009 Paul wrote:
>The cam in that test looks like it has seen a fair bit of use going by the scratches on the triggers. Could it be possible that it might have some existing damage or wear which has happened since its manufacture?

More history on that cam and the testing: http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2023340 (for some reason I have to load the page and then reload to get the images)

Paul

11-Jun-2009
12:30:12 PM

On 11/06/2009 ajfclark wrote:
>On 11/06/2009 Paul wrote:
>>The cam in that test looks like it has seen a fair bit of use going by
>the scratches on the triggers. Could it be possible that it might have
>some existing damage or wear which has happened since its manufacture?
>
>More history on that cam and the testing: http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforu
>.cgi?post=2023340 (for some reason I have to load the page and then reload
>to get the images)

Black diamond have changed their design twice since the production of that model, so are the results relevant for the current design?

fish boy

11-Jun-2009
1:19:06 PM

How about people list what they use and why they like it, otherwise it's all just opinions.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

11-Jun-2009
1:20:44 PM

>Unable to send message. Recipient's private message store is full.

fish boy, your PM box is full ...


ajfclark

11-Jun-2009
1:55:16 PM

On 11/06/2009 Paul wrote:
>Black diamond have changed their design twice since the production of that model, so are the results relevant for the current design?

Further down the page he pulls apart the failed green and shows the old axle design and so on. It looks like this particular failure mode is somewhat related to that axle design so I'd say no.

I do know a few people that still have u-stem camalots around though and for them this is applicable.

one day hero

11-Jun-2009
6:31:24 PM

On 11/06/2009 ajfclark wrote:
>Further down the page he pulls apart the failed green and shows the old
>axle design and so on. It looks like this particular failure mode is somewhat
>related to that axle design so I'd say no.
>
>I do know a few people that still have u-stem camalots around though and
>for them this is applicable.

Bullshit! I have the model that was blown up in that test, it says clearly on the tag 12kN! Therefore if they can't hold what they claim to, Black Diamond should be held accountable to the same standards as CCH. You can't let them off the hook with "that was 10yrs ago, doesn't count"

Anyway, I don't actually have a problem with cams failing at 900kg, plenty strong enough.

I wish patto would tell us where he gets his cam angle data, I understood that 13.75degrees was what everyone used, except for metolius's last couple of years models


ajfclark

11-Jun-2009
9:20:42 PM

On 11/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>Bullshit! I have the model that was blown up in that test, it says clearly on the tag 12kN! Therefore if they can't hold what they claim to, Black Diamond should be held accountable to the same standards as CCH. You can't let them off the hook with "that was 10yrs ago, doesn't count"

Fair call though it does appear they've pulled their act together in the intervening time though.

patto

12-Jun-2009
12:42:59 AM

On 11/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>On 11/06/2009 ajfclark wrote:
>I wish patto would tell us where he gets his cam angle data, I understood
>that 13.75degrees was what everyone used, except for metolius's last couple
>of years models
You've understood incorrectly. Cam angles vary from brand to brand. I get my information from reading forums and company websites. Also measuring, done this once for the excersize.

As far as i am aware the cam angles listed below are accurate.
CCH - 16degrees
BD - 15degrees
WC, DMM, HB - 13.75
Metolius - 13.25
Omega (link) - 13.5

(Lots of the other brands 2nd tier brands (rock empire, kong, etc) I think use 13.75, most seem to be tech friends knock offs.)

On 11/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>
>Bullshit! I have the model that was blown up in that test, it says clearly
>on the tag 12kN! Therefore if they can't hold what they claim to, Black
>Diamond should be held accountable to the same standards as CCH. You can't
>let them off the hook with "that was 10yrs ago, doesn't count"
>
I don't think anybody is suggesting otherwise. If BD was producting shit products today then I would be worried. However BD isn't the one producing bad cams NOW, CCH is. More to the point they take safety VERY seriously unlike CCH has demonstated. They also rate to a known standard (3sigma), CCH don't. Also you are still confusing quality control with accurate ratings. The bigger problem isn't aliens failing a 8kN but the QC issues that are almost systemic in this company.


wallwombat

12-Jun-2009
7:32:18 AM

On 12/06/2009 patto wrote:
>Also you are still confusing quality control with accurate
>ratings. The bigger problem isn't aliens failing a 8kN but the QC issues
>that are almost systemic in this company.

Bingo.

fish boy

12-Jun-2009
9:48:09 AM

On 11/06/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>>Unable to send message. Recipient's private message store is full.
>
>fish boy, your PM box is full ...

Not any more!

Paul

12-Jun-2009
11:51:04 AM

On 11/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>On 11/06/2009 ajfclark wrote:
>>Further down the page he pulls apart the failed green and shows the old
>>axle design and so on. It looks like this particular failure mode is
>somewhat
>>related to that axle design so I'd say no.
>>
>>I do know a few people that still have u-stem camalots around though
>and
>>for them this is applicable.
>
>Bullshit! I have the model that was blown up in that test, it says clearly
>on the tag 12kN! Therefore if they can't hold what they claim to, Black
>Diamond should be held accountable to the same standards as CCH. You can't
>let them off the hook with "that was 10yrs ago, doesn't count"

It would be interesting to know what effects age, use and shockloadings can have on the strength of the metal components? Any engineers out there who can shed some light on this?


IdratherbeclimbingM9

12-Jun-2009
12:03:54 PM

I would think that the 'soft' components are what wear out first, ie ropes, slings etc. The metal bits would be rather static in their life expectancy by comparison, unless damaged.

one day hero

12-Jun-2009
5:44:31 PM

On 12/06/2009 patto wrote:
>As far as i am aware the cam angles listed below are accurate.
>CCH - 16degrees
>BD - 15degrees
>WC, DMM, HB - 13.75
>Metolius - 13.25
>Omega (link) - 13.5

I'm not saying this is wrong, but given the numbers above you would expect that aliens would slip out of smooth placements where WC and HB cams hold. I have experienced exactly the opposite, on enough occasions to make me question your numbers. Obviously I haven't done anything that would qualify as a real experiment, but I don't think you have either.

They also rate to a known standard (3omega),

This pisses me off, I think it's a marketing exercise. Spraying on about their amazing statistical accounting processes does not change the quality of the product. I would be impressed if BD published a mean strength and a standard deviation for each product. That would be useful information.

The bigger problem isn't aliens failing a 8kN but the QC issues
>that are almost systemic in this company.

Again, you're hanging CCH out to dry on one old, bad batch and random bad results since then. I show you a random bad result from BD and a couple of people jump up to say how it doesn't reflect poorly at all!?
I think CCH should be hauled over the coals for bad brazing and would love them to come out publicly with new QC standards, but don't confuse that with how the cams perform when they're made properly.....and send some shit BD's way for lying in their promo material 10yrs ago. The only reason you trust them now is because of their current promo material which was probably written by the same lying individuals.

Lee C

12-Jun-2009
6:24:41 PM

On 12/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>
> They also rate to a known standard (3omega),
>
>This pisses me off, I think it's a marketing exercise. Spraying on about
>their amazing statistical accounting processes does not change the quality
>of the product.

Maybe not the quality of the product itself but of the quality and most importantly the reliability of
those products that make it to the shelf it certainly does.

The 3 sigma standard involves testing every single unit before it is sent out to stores. This is only
done by BD Wild Country and DMM. I think more than a marketing exercise it is a way to lessen the
incidence of batch problemsand the subsequent legal fees that the other brands have to contend with.

fish boy

13-Jun-2009
9:35:42 AM

Is it viable for a small companies to use a 3 sigma rating?

Omega Pacific, Kong and Metolius cams are 3 sigma too Lee...

drdeviousii

13-Jun-2009
2:27:15 PM

>On 12/06/2009 patto wrote:
>Also you are still confusing quality control with accurate
>ratings. The bigger problem isn't aliens failing a 8kN but the QC issues
>that are almost systemic in this company.

BD quality control is barely average also. I've had to send back LOTS of BD ski gear because of simple QC issues... their climbing gear has been more reliable for me though.

fish boy

15-Jun-2009
8:13:04 AM

I can think of 3 ski bindings in the last 15 years that BD have recalled.

That said, find me a gear company that hasn't had a recall....BD's recalled products often become revolutionary....

patto

15-Jun-2009
10:19:13 AM

On 12/06/2009 one day hero wrote:
>On 12/06/2009 patto wrote:
>>As far as i am aware the cam angles listed below are accurate.
>>CCH - 16degrees
>>BD - 15degrees
>>WC, DMM, HB - 13.75
>>Metolius - 13.25
>>Omega (link) - 13.5
>
>I'm not saying this is wrong, but..
Don't try bring into question my facts when you haven't even bothered to try to confirm them. As far as I'm concerned these figures are correct, I researched them from multiple sources.

>
> They also rate to a known standard (3omega),
I can't find anything about this on the CCH website. Would you please tell me why you believe this? Eitherway they ABSOLUTELY fail 3sigma rating as shown by the recent testing of new cams.
>
>This pisses me off, I think it's a marketing exercise. Spraying on about
>their amazing statistical accounting processes does not change the quality
>of the product. I would be impressed if BD published a mean strength and
>a standard deviation for each product. That would be useful information.
No it doesn't change the product. But it sure as hell gives you a RELIABLE strength rating for its product. Which is more than CCH does.

>Again, you're hanging CCH out to dry on one old, bad batch and random
>bad results since then. I show you a random bad result from BD and a couple
>of people jump up to say how it doesn't reflect poorly at all!?
>I think CCH should be hauled over the coals for bad brazing and would
>love them to come out publicly with new QC standards, but don't confuse
>that with how the cams perform when they're made properly.....and send
>some shit BD's way for lying in their promo material 10yrs ago. The only
>reason you trust them now is because of their current promo material which
>was probably written by the same lying individuals.

I'm hanging CCH to dry because MANY cams are failing, sometimes significantly below their rating strength. Their poor brazing and initial denial of it was just scary. So you are calling BD a company of liers now? WTF? Besides how does calling into question other companies policies work as a defense of CCH?

gfdonc

15-Jun-2009
12:59:14 PM

BTW, the guys over on Supertopo are gasbagging about the same thing:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=878126

There are 84 messages in this topic.