UKC

Alien Cam Failures

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Matt Rees 17 May 2007
Ther have been further reports of aliens failing that were manufactured either after the recall or during the recall but "undimpled". Some fairly bootleg test rigs have been made up and further failures are being reported at very low loads.

Various threads and photos on supertopo:-

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=365159&tn=0

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=379659&tn=0

And also rc.com

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post...

Much confusing info but the BL seems to be that your undimpled aliens may not be safe and all cams not marked with the new "tested" stamp need to be treated with suspicion. Some chilling photos to boot.
 Wilbur 17 May 2007
Anyone know where i can get mine pull-tested in the UK? do outside do it for a fee?
 thomasadixon 17 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:

Unless I'm misreading this there is nothing new. What have I missed?
OP Matt Rees 17 May 2007
In reply to thomasadixon:

Whats New? Well, IF I have understood correctly, a cam that was undimpled pulled a few weekends ago. I think that cam was made early this year.

A further undimpled cam that was supposedley properly manufactured during the "dimpled" manufacturing period i.e undimpled has been reported to have failed at 900lbs.

That looks like news to me.

Don't know wherE you can get them tested in the UK.
 Mark Stevenson 17 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees: Looks like a few more reasons to go for British made WC Zeros...
 Wilbur 17 May 2007
In reply to Mark Stevenson:

pretty annoying as i have 4 aliens!
OP Matt Rees 17 May 2007
In reply to Wilbur:

Yeah, I have a rack-full. CCH will test them for you free of charfge, but you might have to pay for shipping. I reckon I mght try and bootleg my own rig...
 Wilbur 17 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:

hmmm - not sure i would trust their testing..

wonder if WC or DMM would do it for a fee..

i do actually own DMM and WC cams as well!
OP Matt Rees 17 May 2007
In reply to Wilbur:
> (In reply to Matt Rees)
>

> I do actually own DMM and WC cams as well!

Lucky you. My rack now consists of nuts and big cams only....
Apex Distribution 17 May 2007
In reply to All:

Ok guy's i'll get this looked into again.

To be totaly honest, I'm not convinced on those threads.

Having spoken to CCH, they say "Some info about testing: Every braze produced since the recall has been tested.
We cut a piece of cable long enough for two units, then braze the cable eyes on to each end so there is a way to attach to the cable. We then put them in a fixture with an Omega electronic strain gauge and apply a load to the cable, 1750 lbs (about 7kn) on the 5/32 " cable and 2400 pounds to the cable for the big units 3/16" diameter(Orange, Purple ,Clear).
We then stamp a marking , (a letter : L, C, U, more recently a TESTED stamp) on the side of each cable eye to denote it was tested. Then we cut the cable in half and begin assembly. We also test each roll of cable to check the breaking strength, a minimum of 2700 lbs is required for us to use the cable."

As it stands there is no new re-call on these cams, what I dont understand is why no one in the UK has had a problem.

Regards,

Jim Keeley,

Apex Distribution.
 jkarran 17 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:

2.5m of 2x4 timber (or 2" box steel), a couple of gerry cans full of water (50Kg load) and some 5mm cord would do for up to ~12Kn pull tester that is pretty easy to 'calibrate'.

Doesn't seem wise though, surely more sensible to contact CCH if concerned.

jk
 Coel Hellier 17 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:

There are some interesting comments on the strength of Aliens on the needlesports site,
http://www.needlesports.com/acatalog/Mail_Order_Friends___Cams_24.html

This says that recent testing done for CE certification indicated strengths significantly below those claimed by CCH.

The fact that a 1.25 Alien can be CE rated as 5 kN, when a 1 is 8 kN and a 1.5 is 9 kN does seem to indicate some variability of quality.
Apex Distribution 17 May 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Hi Coel,

I actually wrote that text.

what i was saying is that when they went for there CE testing, thats the figure we were given. But they actually test them at 25% closure at TUV, Munich - differnt to the recomended clousure (bit like the colour indicators on the metolius cam's, if you've seen them) by CCH.

I also suspect that the 1.25 was a re-call - IE it had a dimple.

If any body has any questions please, let us know.

Jim
OP Matt Rees 17 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:

Thats very helpful. Thanks.

Having read the threads and seen the photos I'm not convinced either way, which means I won't be climbing on mine until I get them tested.
 Oli 17 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution: If I recall correctly, it was stated on the latest rc.com thread that the most recently failed alien had been marked with a T to denote that it had been tensile tested. While I am hesitant to trust information sourced from internet forums, if this is true it would suggest a quite worrying flaw in CCHs tensile testing process, or claims to test every unit.
 jkarran 17 May 2007
In reply to Oli:

...Or that the fall that caused the failure exceded the cam's rating. <just offering another less worying option>

jk
Apex Distribution 17 May 2007
In reply to Oli:

Fair point, if it is true, if you believe the same source, the guy to a BIG wipper on to the cam with nothing else in, no piece of kit is infallable.

Taking into account the testing I mentioned above it must of been a pretty big, if it had of failed anywhere else than the braze but that is exacly what is tested to over 7kn...

One thing is for sure - all the cams that come out of CCH are T-tested.

Jim
Apex Distribution 17 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:
> (In reply to Oli)

> Taking into account the testing I mentioned above it must of been a pretty big, if it had of failed anywhere else than the braze but that is exacly what is tested to over 7kn...
>

By that i mean each cam, tensile tested not the yearly CE tests.

The CE is tested to past breaking (but not done on each cam)

Jim
Apex Distribution 17 May 2007
In reply to jkarran:

Thats my sentiments exactly.

Jim
karl walton 19 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> Hi Coel,
>
> I actually wrote that text.
>
But they actually test them at 25% closure at TUV, Munich - differnt to the recomended clousure (bit like the colour indicators on the metolius cam's, if you've seen them) by CCH.
>
> Jim

With regard to TUV testing at 25% closure, this should hardly be surprising as 25% and 75% closure are the two positions specified in BS EN 12276 that all frictional anchors should be tested at to pass the CE standard.

karl walton 19 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:
BTW
Unless the cam pulled out under test which it should not, why would the level of closure have a bearing on the point of early failure? Especially if say the cable pulled out of the head, as it might well do if the Alien in question was a recall item as you suggest?
Rosie A 20 May 2007


Before we all bin all our Aliens, would it make sense for the UK distributors or manufacturers to put up a definitive post stating exactly what is being recalled and why, and what exactly is meant by a dimple; as a Premiere post? Save the rest of us trawling through several other websites to ascertain what's going on.
 beardy mike 20 May 2007
In reply to Rosie A: I think you'll find Apex are the districutors..
karl walton 20 May 2007
In reply to Rosie A:
I agree the distributors could do to give a clear identification of the recall items. I'm sure they did this originally or CCH did, but this was a little while ago now.
The problem now is that there is some evidence (as yet uncorroborated by CCH) that units not in the original recall group have failed below their rated figures, in a similar way to those in the recall group.
 huwtj 20 May 2007
In reply to karl walton:

http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/recall/

http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/recall/CCH_Camming_Anchor_PR_4-11-06.pdf

Is the recall notice. However as you say these new incidents of failure apparently involve cams that were not part of that recall.
karl walton 20 May 2007
In reply to huwtj:
Thanks Good to have that available.
The PDF has a picture of the 'dimple' mark.
Apex Distribution 20 May 2007
In reply to karl walton:
> (In reply to Apex Distribution)
> BTW
> Unless the cam pulled out under test which it should not, why would the level of closure have a bearing on the point of early failure? Especially if say the cable pulled out of the head, as it might well do if the Alien in question was a recall item as you suggest?

Karl, your absoulty right, just re-read that thread - I was talking gibberish. I didn't want the poster to confuse the two differnt issues.

I was trying to make two points (on differnt subjects) that seem to of merged.

1. the reason the figures were strange because (i think) one of the brown's (they test two) was a re-call cam. Interstingly the breaking strain of the first test position was actually 13.033 kN the second was 5.392kN. Also the tests were done just before the re-call period.

2. In the states they dont have to use the EN tests to establish a breaking strain so they might test them in a differnt way and yield differnt results..

Hope i've cleared that up.

Jim

Apex Distribution 20 May 2007
In reply to karl walton and Rosie A, etc:

The recent cam faliure in the states was NOT a re-call cam it was however tensile tested before leaving the factory but it was a big fall it would be been tensile tested before it left the factory to over 7kn.

There is no new re-call.

As it states on the BMC website, etc if your cam has a dimple, send it back to us (Apex) and it will be replaced.

I might also add, out of the hundreds of cams that went back to CCH for tensile testing none failed.

Regards,

Jim
karl walton 20 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:
OK.
Thanks for your prompt attention.

I believe however the failure issues involving the Alien in question in the second link of the OP have still to be addressed by CCH, or could you please correct me?

Karl.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to karl walton:

I find it hard to take those kinds of tests seriously. I’m not an engineer at all but the tests they are using leave quite a bit of room for misleading results, plus & minus!

You see, I do believe that CCH have been addressing it, just not via the forums.

Since the “dimple” All the cams that went back for tensile testing in the US, they were tested to 7kN then stamped tested, they have had (in the states) literally 100’s of cams go through that (calibrated) process without failure so can you blame people for not taking these un calibrated devices seriously?

But as a result of the US threads they have been documenting the testing they have been doing http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/testing.html and will continue to include some testing info soon to include independent 3rd party testing from reputable, calibrated sources.

We also post all news (good or bad) on the site in this section http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/alien_news.html

How many companies (working at full capacity) would be prepared to offer a free tensile testing service if they didn’t believe in the product?

Regards,

Jim
 tobyfk 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:

> How many companies (working at full capacity) would be prepared to offer a free tensile testing service if they didn’t believe in the product?

It's hardly generosity, it's a survival issue for CCH. Any single-product company, that actually wants to stay in business, needs to do whatever it takes to restore confidence in a situation like this one.
 1234None 21 May 2007
In reply to tobyfk:

I have 2 aliens...purchased recently - where am I supposed to look for the "dimple" exactly?
 Coel Hellier 21 May 2007
In reply to 1234None:

> I have 2 aliens...purchased recently - where am I supposed to look for the "dimple" exactly?

See http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/recall/ and click the link marked "picture" a few lines down.

Aliens bought recently in the UK are almost certainly post-recall stock (the recall was a while ago now).
 Coel Hellier 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:

Hi Jim, out of interest, are the "NEW Alien prototypes" mentioned on the "alien_news" site a forthcoming product?
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

We didn't feel the changes (whilst good) offer a new product so we will just change over to the new version this summer.

Jim
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to tobyfk:

I didn't suggest it was generosity but you've hit the nail on the head when you say its about restoring confidence.

Jim
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to 1234None:

*Re-posted as i must of deleted text by a mistake*

Hi PeakDJ

If you bought them in the UK they wont have a dimple, all the cams since the recall that have been sold in the UK, from us to our retailers are tensile tested and non recall cams.

For more info on last years recall.

http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/recall/

In total we had 4 cams back in the UK in the recall, all bought abroad.

If they do have a dimple, send them back (to Apex) and we will replace them free of charge.

As always, if your not sure contact us.

http://www.apexdistribution.co.uk/contactus.php

Jim
karl walton 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:
I accept your point about such independent 'uncalibrated tests', but I rather think the image of the resulting separated parts of the failed Alien is the subject of concern here.

Second link down in the OP.

It is easy to see that the braze quality in question fell well short of what is potentially possible for that joint.
Maybe the brazing in question would be considered as adequate by CCH,(but I very much doubt it)?
I would think that some kind of comment from CCH about this brazing issue would go some way to answering the concerns of Alien users.
The Alien in the link is 'not a recall item', do you dispute this, or would you rather not engage with this specific case at all?
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to karl walton:

> The Alien in the link is 'not a recall item', do you dispute this, or would you rather not engage with this specific case at all?

No Karl, i dont dispute it, if the guy says there is no dimple then i'm sure there is no dimple.

As for the braze exposed by the "testing" to be totaly honest i dont know what is a good braze and what isn't. What I do know is that that cam will of been tested to over 7kN before leaving the factory so somewhere along the line it's lost is strengh or the tasting process isn't acurate...

Sorry Karl, defantly not trying not to (not) engage your points, i appreacate you taking the time to deliver the sturctured, composed points, that you are - that hopfully, in turn (in me answering) answer's alot of questions for the climbers on this forum.

All we want to do is sell good kit to good shops.

Jim
karl walton 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:
Thanks for your time again.
I guess you are in the tricky position of representing CCH without necessarily having all the specific technical experience to cover all queries!

I have had some contact with the guys at CCH and I respect their style of operation, so I hope these issues can be settled to every ones satisfaction.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to karl walton:
> (In reply to Apex Distribution)
> Thanks for your time again.
> I guess you are in the tricky position of representing CCH without necessarily having all the specific technical experience to cover all queries!

Kind of, i'm no engineer if thats what you mean...

> I have had some contact with the guys at CCH and I respect their style of operation, so I hope these issues can be settled to every ones satisfaction.

I agree, CCH's lack of web presence dosent mean they are not keen do whatever it takes to offer the best service they can.

Jim




 beardy mike 21 May 2007
In reply to karl walton: I would dispute you comment about the braze being below "good quality". The cam in question took a 60 foot lob. At the end of the day a 7kN piece of kit has limitations. You must bear in mind that all tensile testing is performed under lab conditions and is only for a straight pull rather than as I believe (having looked at the photos in some detail) in an angled position. A braze is effectively a solid peice of metal and as it is thiner than thte rest of the unit it is a point of weakness. At the end of the day if the fall was a big one which it clearly was, held by an Grigri (which it was) which induces a higher impact on the piece by virtue of the way a gri gri works (no slippage - all devices designed for trad build in a slippage limit to help protect you placements). It is a piece of gear in its worst nightmare scenario! Perhaps if the cable termination had been crimped rather than brazed this would not have happened but CCH braze for the very specific reason that in pure tensile situtions brazes are stronger and therefore less material can be used making the unit lighter and more compact. Without having seen the failure close up I would suggest that it was placed in a flare with one side fully closed and at an angle, preventing the cam from rotating into a vertical position, thereby inducing an angled loading. You can see this if you look at the placement close up on Photoshop or the likes. Personally I think this is a case of a piece having a bloody hard task and not being strong enough to cope. But what do you want? A micro cam is always going to be a marginal piece! Anyway thats my 2p...
OP Matt Rees 21 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

I may be wrong, but the braze that is being labelled as poor quality was the one on a black unit that was funkness tested, not the yellow unit that took the whipper.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:

No you've got it right Matt, device in the fall was a yellow.

The cam in the (not so) funkiness was a blue.

Mike's points are valid though, I think.

Jim

OP Matt Rees 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:


Eer, well aren't valid points with respect to the blue cam, are they though?

Agreed, the yellow unit may well have been overloaded and/or poorly placed.

The braze on the blue unit looks poor.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:
> (In reply to Apex Distribution)
>

> Agreed, the yellow unit may well have been overloaded and/or poorly placed.

As you say, thats what i meant was a valid point on top of all the other factors.

> The braze on the blue unit looks poor.

How can you tell?

Jim
OP Matt Rees 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:

There appears to be very little penetration of the braze metal into the voids between the cable strands. The section of cable that does look effectively brazed is very short. The tester reports a white powdery substance on the surface of the strands. The tester reports that there is no evidence of braze metal retained within the barrel of the unit. The unit is reported to have failed at 900lbs vs 2200lbs rated strength.

I am no expert, but none of that makes me feel good.
 huwtj 21 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:
> Agreed, the yellow unit may well have been overloaded and/or poorly placed.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b275/tennisplayer121/l_94e58a150e1b31c46e...

If this is the cam we're talking about it looks like a good placement to me. Also the fact that the cam lobes aren't deformed in this pic

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b275/tennisplayer121/l_5e142ac9ec658c471a...

given that the metal is pretty soft suggests it really wasn't overloaded.
 beardy mike 21 May 2007
In reply to huwtj: If you look at the placement the rear cams are actually fully closed. I.e. the cam head cannot rotate because they are jammed. You cannot tell from this picture alone at what angle the cam was placed but I believe it was at quite a jaunty angle. The mode of failure would subtantiate this as effectively the head unit would act as a lever. Obviously I cannot prove this but given the nature of the fall, the load and the way the cam failed i think it is the most likely way. Effectively the resultant load placed on the braze would be higher and as I previosuly stated the braze will be a weakness. The fact that the cam lobes are not deformed to be honest is completely irrelevant - why would they be? they are 4mm thick aluminium loaded mainly in a compressive and radial mode. There does not need to be massive deformation of the cam faces for it to take the load!
OP Matt Rees 21 May 2007
In reply to huwtj:
> (In reply to Matt Rees)

> If this is the cam we're talking about it looks like a good placement to me. Also the fact that the cam lobes aren't deformed in this pic
>
> http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b275/tennisplayer121/l_5e142ac9ec658c471a...
>
> given that the metal is pretty soft suggests it really wasn't overloaded.

I agree, and it seems to me that that is what everbody is thinking but nobody wants to say.

I have no idea whether or not you'd expect to see the cam lobes damaged or deformed if the unit was loaded past it's rated strength.

I agree, the placement looks good now, but is that how it was placed before it was loaded? Has it moved as a result of the fall. Was it orginally placed badly and this has contributed to the failure. even 40ft is a massive whipper on what is still quite a small cam. This fall was further no?

Then again, in a perfect placement, maybe the lobes would not be damaged at all and teh cable would fail exactly as it has done. A lot of conjecture but no real evidence. I would love for all this to turn out to be just smoke, since I love my aliens and buying a new rack would set e back a small fortune, but I'm not the only person who is sceptical about trusting them. It'd be REAL nice if the person that took this fall ,and teh owner of te purple unit would send them to CCH or an independent lab for analsyis and put us all out of our misery.
 huwtj 21 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:
> The fact that the cam lobes are not deformed to be honest is completely irrelevant - why would they be?

because my aliens all look a whole lot more mashed than that yellow one does and they've never had any huge lobs on them. I just don't believe that cam was overloaded especially as the guy claims he was "seventy feet up or so when I fell from just a few feet above the piece."

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1585733;sb=post_l...

Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:

No the pictures dont make me feel good either what concerns me is the testing methods.

Jim
OP Matt Rees 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:

Agreed - For calibrated, repeatable, dependable testing funkness looks about as random as they come.
 1234None 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution & Coel Hellier:

Thanks - I can confirm mine have do "dimple" so will continue to use as normal.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to huwtj:

5.11d One piece in 70ft, thats running it out.

Jim

 beardy mike 21 May 2007
In reply to huwtj: What if it was a new alien? I believe that was also the case. If it had not been used much then there would not be much wear on the faces of the cam. The wear that is there is in my mind consistent with what you would expect of a lob. At the end of the day the cams have little to do with the failure of the piece and I believe its a complete and utter red herring to consider them in this failure. The difficulty with the RC forum posts is that there is so much information that its difficult to piece together what really happened. As I say the photo's don't really indicate whether its a good placement or not - you have no way of telling the angle at which its placed, its difficult but not impossible to see the rear lobes and you can't really see how the loading would take place as there is no real overview of the situation. Even short falls can generate massive loads which could easily generate sufficient force to break a piece which at best is quite marginal. At the end of the day I don't think that the person who has had the accidents comments can be taken at face value either - he has not helped CCH resolve the issue by forwarding the cam to them, the photos are pretty poor and he has done nothing to clarify what really went on. What do you call a few feet? 5 feet? 10 feet? 20? The route is reknowned as being a dangerous route with poor gear and generally done as a toprope. His belayer was using a grigri which is the daftest tool to use for a runnout dangerous trad route which will exacerbate the effects of a fall (in terms of the gear strength, and he also did not place any suplementary gear to protect against a fall. I'd hardly say that the castigation CCH has received is justified. What Dave Waggoner has failed to do is provide real feed back to his customers and has been oblivious to the power a website has over his reputation.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to 1234None:

No if they have a dimple do not use that cam.

Send it to us - the info has been very clear you will get a replacemnt.

JIm
 huwtj 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:

sure. But if he only fell a few feet onto the cam it's hardly the 60ft lob that other people have mentioned on this thread. Are we talking about the same incident?
 Coel Hellier 21 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:

> I have no idea whether or not you'd expect to see the cam lobes damaged or deformed if the unit
> was loaded past it's rated strength.

Well, these guys tested their Aliens by putting them in a granite crack, trying a rope to the towbar of their car, and driving away. It gives you an idea of what they look like when loaded beyond their rated strength.

http://www.geir.com/aliens/IMG_2257.JPG

http://www.geir.com/aliens.html

To emphasize, these are not failures; they were loaded beyond rated strength; the guys report deforming a biner rated at 31 kN.

These units were not loaded at an angle, so the comparison may not be fully valid, but the above suggests that -- if the quality of the braze is uniform -- an Alien should not fail at the braze without obvious damage to the rest of the unit.
 Coel Hellier 21 May 2007
In reply to 1234None:

> Thanks - I can confirm mine have do "dimple" so will continue to use as normal.

I presume that "have do" is a typo for "have no"; if not send them to Apex.
 huwtj 21 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

Fair enough. I agree it's a whole lot of speculation based on internet postings and some pictures. It seems odd to me that the guy only placed one bit of gear 60' above the ground but it would seem even more strange that that was a crap placement. Where does it say the guy that broke the cam was belayed using a gri-gri? I thought that was another deck-out on the same day - there seem to be 2 incidents described in the rc.com thread.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to huwtj:

Yes the fall was 70ft (i've been saying 60) he only had one piece of gear in so he took a 70ft fall.

Jim
 beardy mike 21 May 2007
In reply to huwtj: Pretty much as I read it it was the first one described in which the guy broke bones. The other did not involve a fall. I don't know but I think the whole thing is extremely suspcious and the RC forum postings do sod all but speculate - there's no hard evidance, a huge amount of hearsy and very little real hard science. If I get a chance I'll do some fag packet calcs to see if my theory is possible and get back to you...
karl walton 21 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:
....... Anyway thats my 2p...

Thanks, very informative and thorough.
Matt Rees was right though I was referring to the Alien that was tested in some guys garage, but that does not detract from the value of your comments.

Karl
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yea i emailed PeakDJ to check - defanatly not dimpled.

Jim
 lps 21 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:
so does this mean i don't have to worry about the cams i bought in the uk or not?
 thomasadixon 21 May 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The real problem with that test is that's it's not a sharp tug, it's a constant pull. If you yank plants out of the ground the stem will likely snap, a slow pull and the root comes out of the soil (obviously not the same but you see what I mean).
OP Matt Rees 21 May 2007
In reply to Bret (rock god):

No idea.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to Bret (rock god):

Of course, I would say no, dont worry.

My thoughts are this the guy has gone out had a go at something hard, run it out and broke a cam (his only piece in, in 60ft).

Then people have gone out broke a load of cams in some pretty stupid tests that have produced varying results breaking Aliens with everything from hammers to car jacks to actual cars!!

Some of the results have been in Aliens favour, some havent but I think they are all vastly incorrect ways of testing frictional anchors.

I think the bigest concerns are all the images of broken Aliens on the Net.. No matter how they got that way.

Jim
 beardy mike 21 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees: Right - fag packet calcs are finished. I've had to estimate the sizes of stuff as I don't own any aliens but I think I'm not too far out. Whats more important to be honest are the figures.

I modelled the head cable termination in 3d and then ran it through a finite element analysis programme in several different scenario's. This is what I found:

If you load the cam straight up as it is in standard CE tests it is the cable not the braze which would fail. There would be a maximum stress of 4.549x10^8 N/m2

If you place the cam at 45deg. to vertical and and place the same force on it the maximum stress experienced is 2.49x10^9n/m2 which is a massive increase. The area around the braze then becomes clearly too weak to take the load.

To reduce the maximum stress to a similar level as the straight tensile test, the force must be reduced to around 2kN which is below the lowest amount a CE marked rope will generate, even for the lowest factor falls. So it is quite obvious that in this sort of extreme placement the placement becomes very very marginal - the equivalent of a small microwire.

The main reason for this is because the wire is totally insupported in an angled placement. Had the cam been placed in a vertical orientation this would not be the case.

I must reiterate there is a certain amount of speculation in my theory, but I think my calcs prove the feasability of it. The load on the braze will reduce exponentially as the angle decreases, but it is clear to me that the angle dramatically reduces the strength of the placement.

Personally I would question the climbers decision to lead out 30 feet of climb above a single micro cam when there were obviously other placements to be had, rather than the integrity of a piece of gear which has been on the market for many years and has held what must amount to thousands of falls. Hope all of this helps.
Apex Distribution 21 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

How many gigs of ram does that fag packet have?

It's not quite a micro cam but I think people will get your point.

It might need a little explanation but, thanks for taking the time to put some maths into it.

Jim
 beardy mike 21 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution: 0.75 and its underpowered. I need a new one cos it can't cope
 huwtj 22 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:
> It's not quite a micro cam but I think people will get your point.

A yellow alien is (about) the same size as a 0.5 Technical Friend.

Yellow alien: .61-1.0 inches
0.5 Friend : 0.67 - 0.94 inches

Anyway let's hope it was overloaded and not a manufacturing flaw that (again) wasn't spotted by quality control and only noticed when an alien broke in use.

Until the broken cam is properly inspected then there can't be any definitive answers.
 beardy mike 22 May 2007
In reply to huwtj: Unfortunately the owner of the cam seems unwilling to allow CCh to inspect. I just read through most of the Supertopo's post by Russ Walling. I have to say about 99% of it is alarmist guff. Suggesting testing you cams with perlon loops and car jacks is just ridiculous. The results produced will be completely inconsistant - it assumes:
1/ that all perlon breaks at the rating which is mostly totally underated to pass CE
2/ the cam is not damaged by the test which is also not necessarily true
3/ the perlon is not weaked by the kink
4/ the testing conditions are absolutely perfect

As for Mr wallings tests with a funkness device - I can't believe that as a manufacturer of climbing equipment himself that he would suggest that connecting a cam to a cable and the wonking it with a heavy hammer is going to produce even vaguely consistent results. I would suggest that his testing methods are far from what might be considered scientific. Unfortunately americans seem to be willing to believe anything that is written down. What is really required is a series of tests under controlled conditions. I hope someone can do some in the near future!
Russ Walling 22 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

Dearest Mike.... read it all again. Would you consider it guff is tensile tested cams were also failing well below rated strengths? Stay tuned my pale friend....

As for the F*ckness device. If you had the proper training, your results could be as repeatable as mine.... but further reading would show that it is not the f*ckness test alone that gives repeatable results, but the inclusion of a known load device to limit the stresses on the piece being tested. Test on this tomorrow... I suggest you brush up a bit.
Apex Distribution 22 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling:

What's the known load device?

Jim
 beardy mike 22 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling: Come off it Russ are you seriously suggesting that a Funkness device is a scientific way to completely wreck somebodies reputation? Surely these tests should be performed in a compltely controlled environment which can be compared like for like with accurate measurements of load, strain and stress and yield loads. I appreciate there appears to be a problem with some of the manufacturing and what you are doing is highlighting it but how on earth can you justify doing it in the way that you are?

Quite apart from anything if you are repeatedly loading a device at or near to its limit until your load limit loop fails, its bound to reduce the yield strength of the cam. Surely you should be breaking them cleanly in one go rather than hammering on them?

When I say guff I am refering to the fact that 99% of the posts are based on nothing more than people responding to your post in a negative way rather than actually adding anything informed or conclusive. All I can see are a bunch of climbers getting extremely worried (rightly) about failures but no conclusive evidence that would stand up in a court of law. WHere are all these failed cams? Have they been forwarded to CCH for analysis? Or are people keeping them for law suits?

The analysis I did was to prove that the Souther Crack failure could have feasibly been due to user error - as I said - what the hell was he doing running it out 30 foot above a single cam anyway? This is different to the mode of failure that you are highlighting. I sincerely hope that the manufacturing issues which you have highlighted will be further investigated but personally if I were you I would be trying to work WITH Dave Waggoner rather than just slating him. You are a manufacturer - how would you feel if some young upstart such as myself posted photo's of broken portaledges and haulbags and then didn't work with you to resolve the issue? To be honest my problem with all of this is not that you've carried out tests, but more the way in which its being done...
 Coel Hellier 22 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

> what the hell was he doing running it out 30 foot above a single cam anyway?

Has it been established that it was a 60-ft fall onto a cam, as opposed to, for example,
a 10-ft fall onto a cam followed by a 50-ft fall to the ground when the cam failed?
 beardy mike 22 May 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier: To be honest in the mode of failure I have suggested the distance is irrelevant. The failure load could be very low yet the cam would still pass a straight tensile test. However I have to reiterate my theory is also speculation - I would need a load of cams and then pull them apart in different loadings...
Apex Distribution 22 May 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

In the guys words he was "a few feet above the cam" witch would suggest it was less than 10ft, to me.

Bear in mind that that doesn’t always mean the forces will be less.
 jkarran 22 May 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It doesn't sound like very much has been established clearly but none of this wild speculation and crude testing can be good for CCH. Though truth told, I was actually quite impressed with how little damage those car pulls did to the cams!

jk
 Coel Hellier 22 May 2007
In reply to jkarran:

> Though truth told, I was actually quite impressed with how little damage those car pulls
> did to the cams!

Agreed. And the fact that they held until they powdered good-quality granite increases confidence in cams overall.
OP Matt Rees 22 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

F-E is notoriously difficult. The data you get back are only as good as the models you set up. I would be highly sceptical of any model until I had seen/understood how it was set up.

Seems to me that publishing your data could be quite as speculative as Russ with his funkness.
OP Matt Rees 22 May 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to jkarran)
>
> [...]
>
> Agreed. And the fact that they held until they powdered good-quality granite increases confidence in cams overall.

I've got no doubt that a well manufactured Alien is truck.

It's the ones that might have been brazed badly that worry me.
 beardy mike 22 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees: Your absolutely right. Which is why I haven't published it. However I might get a friend of mine who is an FE expert to look over it. Remember I have always said that these are approximate calculations. What Russ has done is spread his results as hard fact with undisputable methods.
Russ Walling 22 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

Mike. Here are the facts.
Cams have failed from various problems, not just bad brazes.
Cams have failed that had no "dimple".
Cams have failed that were not part of the CPSP recall.
Reportedly, cams have failed that were stamped tensile tested, though I have not seen these.

I don't care if you test them in a lab with billion dollar equipment, behind truck, or with a rowboat.... if the head pops at low load, I would consider that a problem. Also remember that my test was not in a garage with a carjack, but with a dynamometer in a semi professional environment. My numbers are sound as a pound. Carry on.....

Read this one:
http://www.mountainproject.com/v/climbing_gear_discussion/alien_failure_515...

and put some eyes on this from RockClimbing.com:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view&post=...

5/15/7 Non-dimpled Blue Alien fails at 900lbs when tested by Russ Walling

Souders Crack 11d groundfall (broken cable, non dimpled, post recall)

Faulty Swage (post recall)

Dimpled Orange Alien Braze Failure at Indian Creek (the cam that started the recall)

Gray Alien braze failure (2005, pre-recall)

Non dimpled Paradise Forks Orange Alien bodyweight braze failure (post-recall)

Misdrilled Axle Holes (rei recall thread)

Latest Indian Creek Purple Alien braze failure (newer cam, post-recall)
Russ Walling 22 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:

For one, a loop of swaged cable with a known breaking strength that is repeatable for the method used.
 richard kirby 22 May 2007
In reply to Apex Distribution:

Just seen this thread and reluctant to read the whole thing to find the detail on this "dimple" business.

So the issue is with cams with or without dimple? I have the four smallest aliens and had them about 8 years..........I'm guessing their ok or I'd have known about it!!

Anyway.......how do you check?
 beardy mike 23 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling: Sorry I've not replied - went out climbing yesterday evening and didn't check back in. Thanks for this Russ - I would far rather establish the facts than get into a mudslinging fest which is what the other threads (certainly not your fault) have degenerated into.

I appreciate that you don't care if they are tested in a lab or not, but by hammering on them repeatedly you are exposing them to repeated peak loadings which is not a like for like comparison to the test conducted to give the device its rating in the first place. Also for your own protection in a litigeous society, you must ensure that your tests would stand up in a court, otherwise the fact that you have openly published your findings could be considered libelous. Furthermore if any cases are brought against CCH you may be called as an expert witness - how would you be able to rebuff the defence lawyers when asked about your tests?

I read some of the links you asked me to. Firstly why are you presenting a test performed on a recall cam as new information? It was recalled and therefore should be treated as suspect and sent back to CCH to be tested. It was certainly not made clear in your initial posts that these results were from a recall cam! As such I don't feel that the tests are even that relevent - you knew when you tested it that there was a possability that it would fail.

Moving on to the other cases which to my mind are the ones which actually matter. What we are saying is that so far there have been five cams which have actually failed during use? Do you know whether any of these have been forwarded to CCH? Three are post recall - had they been tensile tested?
I presume the misdrilled holes was a non serious issue unlike the brazes? What about the Faulty Swage?

Russ Walling 23 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:
> I appreciate that you don't care if they are tested in a lab or not, but by hammering on them repeatedly you are exposing them to repeated peak loadings which is not a like for like comparison to the test conducted to give the device its rating in the first place.>

Testing to below peak limits is what I'm talking about. This finds catastrophic
problems in the unit. Let's see what that could be like... hmmm.... how about repeated falls? Do you think it would be ok to fall on your Alien say 3 times and then have the head pop off? I would think not. Instead of using yourself as a crash test dummy, use a repeatable low load test from the safety of the ground.

>Also for your own protection in a litigeous society, you must ensure that your tests would stand up in a court, otherwise the fact that you have openly published your findings could be considered libelous. Furthermore if any cases are brought against CCH you may be called as an expert witness - how would you be able to rebuff the defence lawyers when asked about your tests?>

Easily. I stand behind my numbers. My numbers are done with actual test equipment. I have only presented my findings, with all the facts enclosed in the text.

> I read some of the links you asked me to. Firstly why are you presenting a test performed on a recall cam as new information? It was recalled and therefore should be treated as suspect and sent back to CCH to be tested.

Not true. It appears the cam I tested was NOT part of the official recall by the CPSC. The expanded date range was later mentioned in a post on MountainProject.com, and as people have mentioned, not easily accessible or never actually posted to the CCH website.

>It was certainly not made clear in your initial posts that these results were >from a recall cam! As such I don't feel that the tests are even that relevent - you knew when you tested it that there was a possability that it would fail.

See above. Cam was NOT part of the official recall. My posts were edited mere minutes after this recall/not recalled info came to light.

> Moving on to the other cases which to my mind are the ones which actually matter. What we are saying is that so far there have been five cams which have actually failed during use? Do you know whether any of these have been forwarded to CCH? Three are post recall - had they been tensile tested?
> I presume the misdrilled holes was a non serious issue unlike the brazes? >What about the Faulty Swage?

I'm not keeping a score card on failed cams. From what I have been told and seen, I know of at least 5 personally... who knows how many other failures have happened. Not every owner who has had some sort of failure is posting to one of these forums. I have received info on what one tester has called "numerous" failures. This would suggest many more than five. I would assume the cams that failed have either been forwarded to CCH or some Attorney. Misdrilled holes not serious??? Cam angle is paramount to holding ability. If the cams are misdrilled, the cam angle is off, and the ultimate holding power is most likely reduced. Sounds like trouble to me. Faulty swage? Sounds like more QC trouble.

For the record, I have no dog in this hunt. I presented my findings and my opinions. I stand behind them. There are flag wavers on both sides and I really don't care what other people want to do with the info or what particular cam to use as a ticket to the afterlife. I'm not keeping score, and common sense would say the number of failures will rise. So be it. You can rally for CCH if you wish, but keep an eye on the facts and IMO, wear a helmet if you venture out with any of these UNTESTED cams on your rack.
 beardy mike 23 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling: The thing is Russ, the fundamental basis of a load limit is that it is the maximum load a piece will take. It is not meant to be the load a piece will take repeatedly, it is the FAILURE load. A blue cam is CE marked to 6kN, slightly less than 2 kN more than what you found. By exposing it to these loads repeatedly you are effectively weakening it everytime you load it, and it is hardly surprising that it would fail at a lower load.

Secondly you are exposing the cam to a shock loading totally unlike the ones experienced during a fall. A funkness device is absolutely non-dynamic. This is not the way a device would be loaded. Whats more, it is just not even vaguely the same test as that which the cam undergoes to gain its rating.

As for it not being a dimpled cam, surely its either obvious that it has a dimple or not? Surely this would be part and parcel of reporting the failure accurately?

"I have received info on what one tester has called "numerous" failures. "
Please don't report things like this unless the tester is willing to come forwards with accurate and appropriate tests. If they are then feel free to do so but I think it is ridiculous to report hearsy.

As for cam angles I'm afraid you are absolutely incorrect. The cam angle is utterly unaffected by the stem location. If this were untrue the new bread of supercams would not work and nor would BD cams. If you would like a mathematical explaination of this then I would be happy to do so. The most likely reason for a recall because of this is because the cams would not retract evenly and the termination would be compromised.

At the end of the day Russ whether or not you stand by your findings, you are playing with somebodies lively hood, years of work and effort and I would have thought you would rather , if as you say you have no quarrel with Dave Waggoner, work with CCH rather than against them?

Russ Walling 23 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

Sorry Mike I'm going to have to let you yell into the wind on this. You are still missing some info and have not read everything presented. All the questions you raised are within the various and numerous posts in those links from before. No dimple..... We disagree on too much here to ever get this sorted.... but.... fukkness testing not like a fall? Ever take a daisy fall? Aliens being an aid tool make this reality all too common. The difference between this type of fall and a fukkness test is negligible.

They or "Dave" or whoever is taking care of their own livelyhood. As for working with CCH, if you read the threads, people have tried to help them out with this problem... they appear to be unresponsive. How is it that I'm supposed to work with them when they won't work with themselves? There is a lot going on behind the scenes that you probably know nothing about, but I would not want to report any more "hearsay".

In the name of full disclosure, what is your affiliation with CCH?

oh... and I'm going out of town for a week, so carry on without me. Perhaps we'll chat again sometime.
 beardy mike 23 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling: I have no affiliation with CCH - I don't even own any. Whats your unaffiliation with them? You seem to be going out of your way to trash them. Just hate to see a good company spoiled...
Russ Walling 23 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

C'mon Mike.... If facts trash someone, that would seem to be an internal problem at CCH. Elaborate on the "good company" AFTER YOU READ ALL THE THREADS.

Sad to say, there is nothing more for us to discuss. Take your thoughts over to any of those links I provided and bark up their tree. Plenty of takers over there.
karl walton 23 May 2007
In reply to mike kann and Russ Walling
Have been following your exchange with interest.
From a laypersons point of view the braze in the picture in this link is the most worrying thing, say what you like about how the cam was made to fail, that is a poor braze (looks like it was done with a cig lighter).

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=379659&tn=0

It just possibly might be good enough for the job, I don't know I'm no expert but there is no question that that braze falls well short of what is possible for that unit.
If it was only necessary for the braze to penetrate a third of the way down the head tube I feel sure CCH would have made the head tube a third the length or similar!

I would appreciate your comments about this.
Kipper 23 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling:

It looks like you're comparing ('testing') different things to Mike?
 beardy mike 23 May 2007
In reply to karl walton: Hi Karl - I have absolutely no doubt that the braze does not look like it should. My point of view was purely that if a whole group of people are trying to prove that there is something wrong with a product they should do everything in their power to make the tests as appropriate as possible. I am not talking about testing it by pulling it to bits with a car or any other method, but with a load cell, and a controllable hydraulic actuator. Perhaps while we're at it we should test other cams in a similar way to Russ's method to see how they fare. I am looking into working on a test rig to record accurate results - we have a load cell at work and I will try to work on this over the next few weeks.
karl walton 23 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:
Would be interested in your results.
Also any comments you might have on a DIY tensile pulling rig, as I have plans for one of my own (for a different purpose)
I felt my main issue would be arranging a suitable calibrated gauge.
I wasn't for my purposes too concerned about how and at what rate the test load would be applied, but this seems central to your ideas. I would be interested to hear from you by Email if you feel you have the time.
OP Matt Rees 23 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

You seem to be pretty certain about how cams are loaded. Seems funkness testing has been around for a long time. I wouldn't be so certain that funkness testing isn't more akin to loading/falling during aiding. I may be wrong there, but I wouldn't be so brave as to completely rule it out.

On the one hand, you agree that the braze looks odd and you are concerned enough to set about doing your own testing, and on the other hand, you think that anybody that devises their own tests, based on their intended use for the cams, and then brings any alarming results to public light, is doing the wrong thing?

See the problem there?

As far as I can see, Russ is being quite open about his test methods and results, and is merely suggesting the concerned alien user to draw their own conclusions.

Conversely, you seem to have spent quite a lot of time talking about finite element studies (the very pinnacle of vague assumption, dubious boundary condition and unlikely loading scenario) and made a number of fairly bold statements about how you think the cam was placed at Souders Crack and how the consequent failure ocurred.

Knowing what I do about F-E, I for one, would trust a real test with some approximate loading scenario over an uncalibrated computer simulation ANY DAY.


At the end of the day, I'm totally unconvinced about these aliens. You yourself agree that the braze look odd on at least one unit. it would be great if teh owners of the failed units sent them in to get them inspected, but until then, it looks like we'll we have to rely on concerned consumers to take their own steps. I note that CCH have now started to test some of their completed units and publish the results - since Russ started his testing of course.
 beardy mike 23 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees: I'm not entirely sure where you think my bold statements have been? I stated that they were fag packet calcs to propose a theory which I intend to test in real life. I understand that FE is only meant as an indicator which is why I have through all my posts qualified my statements. Whatever the results are I fully intend to share them firstly with CCH. It is their perogative to act upon information - how does Russ know what CCH are implementing within the company - afterall they are under no obligation to share their internal management concerns are they? If my results can help highlight a weakness in the design then all they better...
 beardy mike 23 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees: Also just to add to this - I am sure funkness tests are more akin to a fall on a cam whilst attached with a static daisy chain. Thats my point though - CE testing has nothing to do with this and therefore the results of these two forms of testing are totally unrelated. Unless I'm much mistaken no gear manufacturer recommends this use...
OP Matt Rees 24 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

Bold statements:-

> The cam in question took a 60 foot lob.

> ........rather than as I believe (having looked at the photos in some detail) in an angled position.....It is a piece of gear in its worst nightmare scenario!

> You cannot tell from this picture alone at what angle the cam was placed but I believe it was at quite a jaunty angle

and the one that really gets me:-

> I don't know but I think the whole thing is extremely suspcious and the RC forum postings do sod all but speculate - there's no hard evidance, a huge amount of hearsy and very little real hard science. If I get a chance I'll do some fag packet calcs to see if my theory is possible and get back to you...



All you've done is speculate. About placement quality, about fall length, about gear below the pulled piece. I've been through those threads and there is nothing to support either way any of your assertions, yet you seem convinced (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that CCH are being very hard done by here. The last quote is particularly unhelpful becase you claim too do some back of a fag packet analysis and then run an FE study! FE is anything but back of a fag packet. You need to have some pretty good assurances about model conditions before you can even think aboout doing that sort of study, and anything else is speculation masquerading as science. You say you didn't publish the results but you'll happpily say that a cam at 45 degrees as 5 times higher cable stresses than in a vertical pacement, without mention what model was used to demonstrate this.
I'll retain a healthy scpeticism in those FE results thanks. Russ's funkess IMHO is probably more valuable.

You also seem confused or unconcerned about the claims regarding bad brazing. You first suggest that you don't believe the claims about bad brazing

> I would dispute you comment about the braze being below "good quality".

and then lauch into an analysis of the Souders crack failure. To that p[oint, all the referneces to bad brazing relate to the blue cam that apparently failed at 900lbs with accompanying photo of suspect brazing. Plain and simple.
Nobody knows about the cause of other failures! Thats precisely why were having this discussion!

Now you agree the braze doesn't look right, but you still seem adamant that this is all waffle

As for sharing your results with CCH, can you not see that that is exactly what Russ is claiming he has tried to do, with little success?

A last point. Consider that just because the funkness test doesn't mimic the same loading scenario that a CE test might, does not make it invalid. THe most approriate test is the one that closest approximate real life loading. These cams were designed for the aiding thin, pinned out granite cracks. If a CE test doesn't mimic this, well other than a means of demonstrating repeatability and QC, it's not much use, is it.

Russ did quite a lot of testing and got what he believed to be some pretty sketch results. You looked at a bunch of photos, did an even more sketch "fag-packet" FE study and pronouced him wrong.

I have no axe to grind. I want my aliens to work, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and say it's all fine until I know it is. I want CCH to help me come to that conclusion. They weren't doing that until people (like Russ) started to make some noise.
 beardy mike 24 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees: Yes they are speculations, but what I was trying to do was suggest a mode of failure which is not beyond the realms of imagination under which the cam could be expected to fail in the way it did. If you read my original post it was about the Souders Crack Failure, not about the testing that Russ did. I only discussed Russ's findings later after I had read the supertopo's forum. Theories are always going to be theories, and what I would aim to do in any experiments is work out whether what I thought might be a possabilty has any truth to it. Believe me - if I was totally wrong I will be the first to stick my hand up and say so.

Again if you reread my posts there is nothing that says that the blue alien that russ tested has a good braze - I was still talking about the souders crack piece. If this was not clear I apologise - I hope that this makes sense to you? Afterall if the Souders crack cam had been a bad braze, would it not have ripped from the termination just like Russ's blue cam? I believe there is some other factor at work.

As for my point about the CE test, its that how can you take two totally different tests and then compare the results? That to me is the biggest undoing of Russ's tests. I have no problem with him doing tests if he did try to share them with CCH before publishing them (I don't think he has stated that he has unless its in one of the other forums?).

What I had a problem was the comparison of two figures which are uncomparable. As you know an instantaneous shock loading like falling onto an aided placement on a daisy is totally different to that experienced when freeclimbing when energy is disappated over time by the rope, and belay device slippage. The fact is there is no CE mark for this, so what is Dave Waggoner supposed to do? Make his own up? The very fact that he has a CE test on the product indicates that it was a static tensile test and nothing else - maybe what he needs to do is provide two ratings - one for aided placements and one for normal use.

At the end of the day I agree with you that in the cam that Russ broke there seems to be a bad braze and its something that CCH need to address. Its the 900lb failure which I'm questioning and asking whether its so unreasonable given that its been repeatedly shockloaded during the funkness, and that thats less than 2kN less than CE marking, when it has a badly pentrated braze.

The problem is that these forums are read by thousands and the fact that there are now four or five current threads floating about with god knows how many people stating that they are now preparing to chuck their cams in the bin means that there are hundreds if not thousands out there now extremely worried when in reality there have been a handful of failures reported on thousands of cams. And furthermore it turns out that some of these cams have been exposed to extreme falls as well.

If Russ has sent all his findings directly to Dave Waggoner then I apologise for making any comments about "trashing". I just hope that he has considered it worth the effort to contact CCH directly with is results. Afterall it does appear that CCH are trying to address the problem but as I said before they are under no obligation to tell you immediately what that is. They have it would appear started to implement more open testing: http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/testing.html
 galpinos 24 May 2007
In reply to all:

I'm finding this thread quite interesting as an engineer. I think it's slightly marred by people backing there own theory without considering others but it's a considered debate. I've not got any aliens but am thinking of getting some small cams, this'll sway my decision.

My opinions are:

What needs to be established, imho, is whether the post recall aliens are failing the CE test. (This doesn't seem to have been established). This is pretty vital.

The next step is to assess how relevent this test is to Aliens normal application and whether a more "real" test/loading case needs to be applied. If Russ Wahling's test simulation is causing them to fail and is a realistic approximation of the repeat loading these cams would see in the field then despite being CE rated they're not fit for purpose.

Thye ball does seem to be in CCH's court.
Russ Walling 24 May 2007
In reply to mike kann: At the end of the day I agree with you that in the cam that Russ broke there seems to be a bad braze and its something that CCH need to address. Its the 900lb failure which I'm questioning and asking whether its so unreasonable given that its been repeatedly shockloaded during the funkness, and that thats less than 2kN less than CE marking, when it has a badly pentrated braze.

Quick one for you Mike: seems to be a bad braze???? Now that is laughable.

That failed cam (blue one) was slow pulled and never funked. Slow pull, dynamometer in line, head popped off at 900. Ta Ta....
 beardy mike 24 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling: For christs sake Russ - we have been talking about this for days now. I made it quite clear at the beginning that I was under the impression it was funkness tested - you could have easily corrected me - why the delay? You seem more interested in point scoring than having a proper debate about this. I won't bother posting again until I have conducted tests myself and approached CCH about it. Any how - I thought you were out of town?
Russ Walling 24 May 2007
In reply to mike kann:

Leaving just now... Duty calls. You were not really that clear but were fixated on the funkness. I should have known from your arguments. Sorry if you were confused, but it is pretty well known that I PULL test stuff in SuperTopo land, not funk. But you can run with this: I still think that if you put a KNOWN fuse as you guys call it in the system and then funk the piece, you will be better off than just using the cams untested.
OP Matt Rees 24 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling:

Russ. I'm not clear on this either. Were none of the aliens you tested done by funkness?

Also did you ever try and talk to CCH about your results?
Russ Walling 24 May 2007
In reply to Russ Walling:

Don't know how to edit, but I'll add:

On the method outline, it says PULLER. No where on the page does it say FUNK.
Russ Walling 24 May 2007
In reply to Matt Rees:

No funk tests for anyone that has sent me cams for testing.

CCH has been contacted about this problem and the cam was sent back to them.
Apex Distribution 25 May 2007
In reply to All:

*Re-posted due to some grammar errors*

It has been clear from this thread that, over the last week there have been some concerns regarding the recent issues in the US. I have also made it clear that neither I, or Apex can go on anything other than fact when talking about some of recent testing methods used to highlight/disprove possible issues with the Alien cams regardless of whether the out outcome if positive or negative.

So, here are the steps taken to ensure (in reverse order), that since the recall that make sure that all Aliens come out of the factory as indented.

On Tuesday 22nd we (Apex) took the decision to send a random batch of green Aliens (most popular size) to the testing facility @ TUV, Munich for some testing on their highly accurate equipment for a totally independent report. The tests were as we would expect, at 75% percent closure (we recommend between 50% – 90% the cams all pulled to between 9.73kN – 11.07 before the cams started to de-form and the axels bend thus pulling through the rig – at NO point did the braze or stem pull apart at 25% OR 75% closure. These cams were from UK stock and had been sent out before confirming the testing with CCH so were an absolute fair representation of stock and no preparation was made for the tests by CCH.

Since January 2006 every Alien cam main cable is tensile tested using an Omega electronic strain gauge to measure the load, the recent calibration certificate confirms accuracy. The .33 (Black, no CE) through to 1" (Red) main cables are tested to 1750 lbs/ 7.784kN and the 1.25 (Gold) through to 2.5 (White) are tested to 2400 lbs/10.752kN. After testing they are stamped on the cable eye to indicate the test was made. We then add the necessary parts to produce the cams.

All cams made since they have been back in the UK, since Jan 06, have been tensile tested.

Apex have also decided that as the UK distributor we are prepared to send back any PRE-tensile test cams for tensile testing as a service to the UK climbers to take advantage of the free tensile testing service CCH does. So if you bought your cams before 01st Jan 2006 (all the UK cams were tensile tested before Apex agreed distribution) if you feel you would like to have them checked out then please feel free (it’s not a requirement or recall) to send them back to Apex before 15th June and we will get them back to the US, tested and returned free of charge within three weeks from the 15th. Please include your name, your address, a contact number and where you bought them from – we can’t send them without these details.

All cams before 01/06 will be sent back without testing as the same tests have already been done.

That’s about as much as I feel can be done re-assure the climbers on UKC of the measures we have gone to correct these issues.

If anybody has any questions please contact us http://www.apexdistribution.co.uk/contactus.php

I hope this assures you that we do, and will continue to provide products that widen the safety margins in mountain sports.

Jim Keeley,
Apex Distribution
Russ Walling 11 Jun 2007
New Test Results in.....

More failures of TESTED ALIENS.


http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=379659&tn=220

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...