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


foreverabumbly

16-Jun-2009
12:36:31 PM

I understand it, far more than you think I do. I argue that it isnt the be all and end all. Its great and all, but people shouldnt just put 100% trust into a system that doesnt garantee 100% success.

I never said you or anyone else is specifically putting blind faith in anything. I am advising that people shouldnt.

I am putting it out there that just because a cam has a sigma3 testing standard, doesnt mean it automatically qualifies as safe. And that we are wise to treat all our gear with a healthy dose of skepticism.
You say yourself that there can never be 100% garantee. putting defects aside, sigma3 rating states that there is still a chance that a cam is not going to work as promised. As slim a chance as it is, it still can happen. It can still happen to you, or to me. And a Sigma3 stamp, UIAA stamp or a 16Kn stamp isnt going to do much to stop it.
You can statistically analyze a cam all day, but it wont stop it from being the bodgy cam in the production line.

Im sorry, I didnt realise I entered a debate with you patto, I was just stating another opinion, obviously you missed my point as well.

I dont particulalry care whether a scientific point of view can be achieved with or without statistics. I just want my cam not to break. And for me not to fall and die.

mikl law

16-Jun-2009
1:10:54 PM

In real life gear doesn't break anywhere as often as placements do.
If thats any comfort to you
That's why you always place a few extra, and use double ropes

one day hero

16-Jun-2009
6:38:47 PM

On 16/06/2009 patto wrote:

>One day hero it is clear that you still don't understand. Pull testing
>cams to 7 or 8kN is proof testing. This is a sepparate issue. I am not
>saying that this is bad.

Really Pat, I do understand. I realise that statistical breaking strength ratings are different to proof testing, and I'm saying that proof testing is the more useful of the two.

I'm also saying that I would prefer to hear mean and std. deviation because from this you can very easily calculate the 3sigma value, the opposite is not true.
>
The solution you suggest is unscientific
>and tells you nothing about the unbroken cams.
>
Now I think it's you who doesn't understand. Proof testing every unit tells you exactly the one bit of info you really need know .......can this particular cam hold all of the falls it will ever likely see, without breaking?

Anyway, this thing is getting circular. I'm over it, no doubt you are too. Time to woody


climbingfool

17-Jun-2009
8:53:53 AM

I stopped reading this after it turned into the Alien thing, so if the following link is already here somewhere sorry, here it is again.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2149960;forum_view=recent_posts;

Independant test results of new and used Aliens posted on June 2 at rc.com, with heaps of pictures of destroyed aliens.

There are 84 messages in this topic.