UKC

VOLUNTARY RECALL NOTICE - WILD COUNTRY CLASSIC ROCKS AND ANODISED ROCKS - Issued 07/10/2013

For the safety of all of our customers Wild Country are issuing an immediate recall of certain batches of Wild Country Classic Rocks and Anodised Rocks.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/news.php?id=5847

In reply to UKC Gear:

Bump this back up to the top. Will be checking mine later and letting people know.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Can't check mine till Christmas, since they're in storage in the UK and I'm over in Sweden, but I'm fairly certain that they'll be hit. Good thing they were my second set (doubling a set of wallnuts (and that I only brought the wallnuts out here with me)).

I feel for those who only have one set - who are of course likely to be those who bought in the affected region since most people end up doubling up after a few years...

In reply to UKC Gear:

Awww, just checked and mine are affected Damn. And I really liked having a double set of nuts :p

I'm going to end up sending mine back, but I have been thinking about how many times I've fallen on these! they've been ok for the last two years.

Well, a pretty new set can't hurt I guess.

In reply to UKC Gear: bump

In reply to Timmd:
The two sets in my family are affected. I've just got back from a 6 month USA tour where these were used heavily!

In reply to UKC Gear: I'll check mine at the weekend. Sorry for Wildcountry and glad that they're very safety concious. I'm sure mine are fine but I must confess I do tend to avoid falling on them.

In reply to UKC Gear: Why? What is the failure mechanism?

Mine were one of the bad batches, and they were put in the post to WC this afternoon. Hopefully won't take too long to replace.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Mine are one of the bad sets too. Will be returning them tomorrow. Luckily I have another set.

In reply to yarbles:
Like you I'd be interested in knowing what the problem was rather than 'there was a problem'.

In reply to andyathome: Andy and others the problem is stated here: “Following a recent failure in use of a Classic Rock, in which fortunately no injury occurred, we conducted an in depth investigation and an extensive testing programme. Following the testing of over 17,000 Rocks we found some units that did not achieve their rated strength which varies, depending upon the size, from 4kN to 12kN. In a very small number of cases the failure load was below the units rated strength and in some cases below 7kN; a peak load that can be realistically achieved during a fall.”
Basically some Rocks failed below their rated strength so we recalled them.

In reply to Richie Patterson, Wild Country:

Would you be able to describe a failure mode? Was it the swage, nut or wire?

In reply to Richie Patterson, Wild Country:

So did the swaging fail, or did the cables break? Other?

In reply to Richie Patterson, Wild Country:

How long are we looking on return Richie?

In reply to UKC Gear: my first and only nuts are the affected wc classics, with then being the worst affected batch. It's a good job I haven't taken any falls yet, doesn't really fill me with confidence though.

In reply to xplorer: Unfortunately It's not going to be immediate. Given we have found the problem we have to start from scratch to build up stock to cover the returns. The factory in Tideswell has an output practically limited by raw material availability and production capacity. When we are able to judge the rate of return of product we will post regular updates to keep customers informed of the anticipated delay.
I am really sorry that this will cause you inconvenience, however we felt that it was more important to announce the recall as quickly as possible rather than delay until we had a stock of replacement product. We will do everything we can to get the Rocks back to you as quickly as possible.
Thanks for your understanding and I can understand your frustration.

In reply to jonnie3430: Normally you would expect the wire to break during tensile testing. In the case of the products that we tested that didn't reach rated strength it was the swage that was the problem.

In reply to UKC Gear: I'll be checking mine in the morning. Will be a pain in the arse if they're affected as I'll be down to one set ( DMM) and I need them for work. Will end up having to buy new DMM ones because I can't wait for the new ones to be manufactured and then mailed out.

In reply to UKC Gear:
All mine included, best find a big envelope I guess. Still got wallnuts so not totally limited. Glad things like this aren't swept under the carpet though.

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:

Sweet, cheers.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Hey, I have a set off 8 but only 4 are affected :S.

Rocks 8,7,6,4 are ag.
Rocks 1 and 2 are af then 3 and 5 are ac and ad respectively.

Lucky I decided to peel back another of those tough tags as they were covering the batch codes. I assume the shop must have assembled them or something as I haven't been dropping/losing them! Will be very annoying to my OCD if I end up having half a knackered set and half spanking new. Wish the whole lot was affected now...

In reply to FreshSlate:

Don't worry about it, within a year of climbing you will have picked up enough spares from cleaning nuts off routes that you will never look back.

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:
Martin I have a new set that is affected and an old set that isn't. I also have climbing partners that have other sets so I'm not in a desperate rush to get mine back. I appreciate others are not in the same situation so something that could help you would be to add a box on the returns document asking the returner if their need is critical. Of course this will rely on people's honesty but it could help you a little to prioritise returns and keep customer frustrations to a minimum. Andy

In reply to UKC Gear: within the last year there have been product recalls on loads of stuff by wild country. Helium krabs, ropemans, via ferratta lanyards and now nuts.
Are gear manufacturers normally recalling this amount of products every year?

Put my whole set in the post yesterday. Luckily they're my second set.

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:


Can I just say thanks for being open about it, rather than just recalling them and saying that there's a problem with them.

In reply to jonnie3430:

But make sure you check your crag swag to see if it's in the affected batches...

I may put down that I'm in no rush, prefer the wallnuts personally.

In reply to UKC Gear: every single wire of mine had to be sent back. I'll be using DMM or BD in future.

In reply to ADHD:

Until they recall something, I suppose?

In reply to jon: Cough, cough

http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/news.php?id=2905

In reply to UKC Gear:

I guess if your rocks are so knackered that you can't read the serial code they were probably bought before 2010

In reply to UKC Gear: This is an impressive recall safety effort based on one failure. What exactly does the 3 sigma rated mean then ? Thanks.

In reply to jvarmstrong:

Assuming the distribution of forces at failure is approximately Gaussian, then 99.7% of all units tested fail at above the rated strength.

In reply to ADHD:

I really don't get this short sighted attitude. Okay it shouldn't really happen, but to me it's reassuring that WC are acting quickly and positively to remedy the problem.

In reply to jvarmstrong: 3 sigma is a statistical method of analysis. It relates in this case to the breakages you will see below the rated strength in a batch. Effectively it means that there is only 0.1% uncertainty that the unit will not exceed the rated strength.

In reply to Andy Fielding:

And what is a priotity return? Surely Mountain Rescue and Rope Access teams have a greater priority than recreational climbers.

Mine are likely affected and I'll need to check when I get home, but I can't say I will be spinning in circles hot flushed to get them replaced immediately. While it is good they are doing a recall you really need to look at the numbers. Statistically speaking, considering the small number which failed, and the likelyhood of me actually taking a fall makes the chance of being in a situation where a nut which fails at less of its rating is very low. Factor in the nut failing for reasons other than being loaded to its rating such as placement, and that chance is even lower.

I'm probably more likely to be attacked and killed by Fulmars.

In reply to Calder: Technically, ADHD might well be using BD or DMM in the immediate future, since his WC nuts may need replacing...

On a more serious note, incidents like this make me more, not less, confident to use WC gear! I'd much rather use gear from a company that I can trust to have done major, commercially-damaging recalls at the least sign of a problem, such as WC, than one that has no history of doing so and may therefore be hiding the problems.

Also worth remembering that what has essentially happened is that the failure rate has risen above the 3-sigma guarantee, not that every single WC nut is about to break horribly. WC have therefore chosen to take the short-term hit to profits in order to maintain their 3-sigma guarantee and long-term reputation.

In reply to David Ponting:


+1

In reply to mike kann:

Which isn't actually that great for gear you are trusting your life to. I've noticed some products I've bought recently every unit is pull tested, I think really this is the way to go.

In reply to UKC Gear: Hats off to WC for being so honest, some of my rocks are affected, but it gives me confidence to know that they are so open about any issues that may occur.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

http://info.rockrun.com/articles/3-sigma-rating.html

Is everyone is pull tested then what do they sell?

In reply to FreshSlate:
quite a lot of manufacturers do pull test gear either to the rated strength or to some percentage of it now a days. One of my Kong HMS biners has this level of testing on it.

In reply to CurlyStevo: Do they? Any links to support this?

In reply to CurlyStevo:


From the WC link, specifically the last sentence.

"During manufacture we conduct “in-process” tensile testing to destruction, we test product at the commencement of manufacture of each batch (“first-off”), at the end of each batch (“last-off”) and one unit every 100 produced. However, this testing did not identify this problem at the point of manufacture. As a consequence we have reviewed quality assurance procedures and implemented proof loading to a safe working load of all units produced."

In reply to Double Knee Bar:

In reply to Double Knee Bar:
Yea of little faith

http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/files/BasicCam/BASIC_ingles.pdf

" Each Basic Cam is tensile-tested to 60% of its rated strength"

Also as mentioned Kong do similar on some products

http://www.kong.it/pr_conn.htm

I believe its what the T icon means, I could ofcourse mis-interpreted this but when I bought my kong HMS biner last year after reading the gumph that's certainly the impression I got, and some sites quote that all Kong gear is individually tested.

If you hunt about you'll find more manufactures doing this also, but I'm not doing any more hunting myself like.

In reply to NottsRich:
Cheers

Interesting that WC have obviously come around to the same opinion.

3 Sigma isn't a very good indicator of reliability (as we are finding out) I've heard before that 5 sigma is much better but its not an area I've really looked in to all that much.

Stevo

In reply to CurlyStevo:

If you pull every 7kn nut to 4kn, that doesn't tell you anything. They will all hold 4kn. If you pull all the no.1 nuts to 7kn then a lot will break. So then you need to set an arficially low, 'rated strength' (4kn for simplicity) so you can pull test them to that, so still pointless. I suppose you could have 'rated strength' and 'real strength', the latter only a few models being pulled to as you can't sell broken nuts.

At the moment nuts rated 7kn will 99.9% fail above that figure. Of course they could produce the same nut and lower the rating to 6.5kn for a marginally better statistical accuracy but whats's the point? Btw a sigma '5' would do the same thing here. 5 times the mean deviant...

In reply to CurlyStevo: 3-sigma is a quality-control goal, and not particularly hard to meet. "Three Sigma quality level translates to a process yield of 99.73%." I have worked with 6-sigma before, and it is far more rigorous. According to this article http://www.qualityamerica.com/knowledgecenter/leansixsigma/six_sigma_versus... when testing to 6-sigma the number of errors are per million or per billion, rather than per thousand.

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:
Martin, I assume that everything has also been recalled from stores. When would you see new sets being available for sale?

In reply to Mr Fuller:

I'd rather they sort of QC out and make nuts that won't fail at loads that can be generated in a large lead fall instead of lowering their rating for statistics sake.

In reply to FreshSlate:
"If you pull every 7kn nut to 4kn, that doesn't tell you anything."
Incorrect it tells you that each nut will atleast hold 4kn and should weed out any major undetected manufacturing faults. If this was a worthless step manufacturers wouldn't be doing this.

Anyway the totem cams are rated up to 13kn testing them at 60% would be 7.8 kn which according to WC would account for them holding most falls. Also for some of WC's larger nuts testing at 60% would have found this problem in the factory instead of an end user breaking the equipment.

Also I'm pretty sure I've read some kit is tested much closer to the rated load than 60% of it (but I'm not spending more time hunting that out).

" If you pull all the no.1 nuts to 7kn then a lot will break. "

Not if they are already 3 sigma compliant, actually only 1 in 1000 should break. Assuming pulling nuts to their rated limit doesn't harm them in any way, I would suggest this would be worthwhile for such a small loss.

"Of course they could produce the same nut and lower the rating to 6.5kn for a marginally better statistical accuracy but whats's the point? "

I think you may be missing the point here they pull test units from EVERY batch and they must meet the sigma rating provided. With a 5 sigma rating you can say statistically there is around a 1 in a million chance a piece of gear may fail below its rated amount, this means any given piece from any given batch is 1000 times less likely to fail at 5 sigma over 3 sigma. Its not just a lies damn lies and statistics thing.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


Pulling them to their "rated limit" surely would harm them, after all, it is their limit. (Or rather, you could only do this if their actual limit were much higher.) You can either test every piece at significantly below the limit, or test samples to destruction.

In reply to David Ponting:
"Also worth remembering that what has essentially happened is that the failure rate has risen above the 3-sigma guarantee, not that every single WC nut is about to break horribly. WC have therefore chosen to take the short-term hit to profits in order to maintain their 3-sigma guarantee and long-term reputation. "

DMM manufacture the nuts and they say they ensure every batch is 3 sigma tested.
http://dmmprofessional.com/about/quality-assurance/

It seems more likely that the nuts tested from each batch did meet the 3 sigma criteria on manufacture and that WC would still expect some nuts to fail under this limit (roughly 1:1000), but they would expect them still to fail very close to it. However what's happened is some nuts are failing at much lower levels due to some manufacturing fault that hadn't been picked up and the number of nuts failing at this level is unacceptably high (but still very low). Its still possible if every nut in the batches with bad nuts in were tested they would meet the 3 sigma guarantee.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

That's a pretty serious misunderstanding of what 3-sigma means.

The whole concept is based on the assumption that breaking strengths are normally distributed (this is a pretty good assumption). That is if you test 10,000 nuts and record whether they break at 0-0.1kn, 0.1-0.2kn, 0.2-0.3kn ... and then plot them on a bar chart you'll get something like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviatio...

where the vertical axis is the frequency and the horizontal axis is the breaking strength. Here mu (the u shaped thing) is the average breaking strength (which will be above the rated breaking strength.) This distribution is described by the following function

https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/6/d/d6dba07916b9397a07f3399d037a126c.pn...

It looks a bit scary, but the only important thing to us are the parameters sigma (the 'o' with a tail) and mu. These control the 'spread' and 'position' of the distribution respectively. If you increase sigma then you make the distribution wider and flatter, if you change mu you slide the whole thing up or down the horizontal axis. Some examples here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Normal_Distributi...

Now on to what 3-sigma means in the context of breaking gear. Our basic problem is that we want some reassurance that our gear is strong enough without having to test every piece to destruction. How to do this? Well if we test, say, 1 in every 10 pieces we can then work out the average breaking strength and how much variation there is in breaking strength. These are exactly the parameters we need for our normal distribution, so we can plot this graph and see how many of our pieces we can expect to exceed their rated strength. This is all pretty standard stats.

On to the more interesting side. Imagine you are a manufacturer and you want to guarantee that your product meets this 3-sigma standard (that is to say 99.7% of the products will exceed their rated strength.) Using what we know about the normal distribution you could either increase the average breaking strength (to shift the whole distribution up the horizontal axis) or you could decrease the spread of the distribution (so the distribution becomes more bunched up). In practical terms, this means you can either over engineer your products or refine the accuracy of your manufacturing process so the products are more consistent. In the context of climbing manufacturers will often take the latter route, as climbers care about weight and are willing to pay a relatively high price for their gear.

The fact that manufacturers aim towards low variability is good news for climbers. One very nice consequence is that of the 0.3% of pieces that are below their rated strength the vast majority will only just be below their rated strength. So if we have a 10,000 nuts rated to 12Kn, not only could we expect 9970 of those to break over 12Kn (some at significantly higher forces), of the 30 that break below 12Kn chances are very very good that those 30 will all break at something above 8Kn (we can't be exact here without information about average breaking strength and variability from a manufacturer).

Notice here that 8Kn is roughly 60% of the rated breaking strength. Assuming that my guess of 8Kn is in roughly the right ball park you would expect very very few products to break at this force. (More guesstimating from me here but) If you have proper 3-sigma controls in place you will most likely have to test millions of units before anything breaks at 60% of it's rated strength. Do individual pieces of gear even get produced in those sorts of volumes? I don't know, but it's not something Im going to lose sleep over.

Now imagine you want to use 5-sigma instead. As before we can either increase the average breaking strength, leading to significantly heavier and generally over engineered gear, or we can refine the manufacturing techniques involved to reduce variability. This is easier said than done, it's like going from a tolerance of 0.1mm to a tolerance of 0.0000001mm.

In conclusion, if you want your gear to be 5-sigma rated, expect it to be substantially heavier and cost a lot more. And what have we gained? We've gone from a situation where you are monumentally unlikely to break a piece of gear in your lifetime (assuming proper use etc.) to a situation where you could live to be a million years old and still be very unlikely to break a piece of gear, though you'll need those extra years to earn enough money to pay for your gear!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You are probably right and I guess its a hard decision to make at what limit to pull them, that's why I used the caveat "Assuming pulling nuts to their rated limit doesn't harm them in any way"

In reply to remus: I should add that the problem WC seem to have encountered is that their sampling was inadequate to pick up the affected nuts. One of the trickier practical aspects of getting 3-sigma right.

In reply to remus:
"That's a pretty serious misunderstanding of what 3-sigma means."

I find your post somewhat condescending considering I've studied A level and degree level maths.

Also I didn't actually suggest that climbing gear should be 5 sigma rated just that 3 sigma is not a very good confidence level compared to 5 sigma that the gear will fail above the rated strength.

"In conclusion, if you want your gear to be 5-sigma rated, expect it to be substantially heavier and cost a lot more"

Not necessarily either, but I think we'd all like to see the QA and manufacturing processes improved so this type of recall happens less often, I certainly wouldn't want heavier gear. In this case as mentioned individually pull testing the gear to 60% would have picked up the most degenerate cases and its something WC (/ DMM ?) have already decided to do.

Cheers,
Stevo

In reply to CurlyStevo:

And? How should he be aware of that - Do you have your "I'm a maths wizard" t shirt on display?

In reply to Milesy:

how does he know I haven't?

I just found the tone of the reply asking me not to be scared of equations some what derogatory.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

So have I. And completely forgotten almost all of it

In reply to Toreador:
yeah so have I, but I'm not (that!) scared of equations or standard deviation.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Well I found his response fairly interesting to me, and probably others as well.

Unruffle your feather

In reply to CurlyStevo: Sorry if it came off that way, it wasn't meant to. I tried to keep the post fairly low level so that more people could understand it. As Im sure you're aware stats is a commonly misinterpreted subject.

>Also I didn't actually suggest that climbing gear should be 5 sigma rated just that 3 sigma is not a very good confidence level compared to 5 sigma that the gear will fail above the rated strength.

Not a very interesting point if you're not going to consider it alongside the practicalities of the situation. It would be nice if we could make everything with a 20 sigma margin but it would never be practical.


I agree with you here, but I'm not convinced individually pull testing every piece is necessarily the best solution.

In reply to remus:
no bother....

"I agree with you here, but I'm not convinced individually pull testing every piece is necessarily the best solution. "

Actually I'm not expert enough in the field to know the best solutions. However as mentioned pulling the nuts to 60% would have flagged this fault in the factory according to WC so I think it would have been useful. Maybe part of the solution.

In reply to UKC Gear: Along, no doubt, with many others here I've had to return my WC rocks owing to the recall. I guess I will be waiting a while for their replacements to arrive.

This is a sentimental moment for me since they were the first items of pro I ever purchased. The last thing I want is for those lovely scuffs and scrapes, and the stories they tell, to be erased in favour of shiny new replicas. Bugger.

In reply to remus: Thanks for your illuminating post. I guess what we'd all like to know is the failure rate in the recalled batches. Presumably with all the returned wires this could be confirmed as these nuts will not be going out again? The key appears to be proving that the strength to failure is a normal distribution and then with a correct sampling regime the statistics will be correct and the 3 (or better!) sigma marketing sign can be applied to the swage with confidence. The bottom line is there's risk to everything and climbers above all accept and control it e.g. where possible place 2 bits of gear before the crux or abseil, anchor off 2 points. That said we are happy to pay a premium for WC gear and in so doing expect their quality control and sampling methods to be robust and if they find such a problem react quickly and honestly. Any chance they could publish a link to their 3sigma method? Cheers.

In reply to CurlyStevo: But did you pass

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:
Hi Richie & Martin,

Just found that my whole set if rocks is affected.
As you said supply is limited, for those of us living on the continent is it going to be as quick to get a replacement set as those in the UK?

Cheers,
James

In reply to jvarmstrong:
"Any chance they could publish a link to their 3sigma method?"

http://info.rockrun.com/articles/3-sigma-rating.html
http://dmmprofessional.com/about/quality-assurance/

In reply to CurlyStevo: Thanks I saw these (BD + DMM) ones before but I was after the WC one?

In reply to jvarmstrong:
Don't DMM manufacture rocks?

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Yeah this much is obvious, if they're nuts are failing at half their strength then there is a massive mistake been made somewhere. If turns out to be true wildcountry deserve a lot more stick than they have been getting. But you're right its a possibility.

If the larger nuts are failing at below 7kn which I severely doubt.


Obviously you missed the point here. As remus pointed out. You should be glad he took his time to school you. Whilst I had looked into/mentioned the sigma 3 rating before I appreciated his elaboration of the point.

Anyway, we need the figures to actually determine whether testing then nuts to a percentage of their strength would have picked up these faults. Essentially how much did wildcountry mess up here?

In reply to CurlyStevo: sorry maybe my mistake but i though WC made 'rocks' and DMM were a separate company who made 'walnuts'?

In reply to jvarmstrong:
I beleive that WC commision DMM to manufacture them

"As for the construction, the anodised Rocks are now made by DMM meaning that you can expect a very high quality output. Wild Country Rocks and Wallnuts may "

http://www.alpineexposures.com/pages/wild-country-rocks-review

In reply to CurlyStevo: Not any more. From a DMM post on facebook:

"In light of the the recent Wild Country Rock recall DMM has had several enquries from concerned climbers regarding our Wallnuts. DMM would like to make the following statement to put everyones mind at ease; no DMM hardware is affected by the Wild Country recall - your Wallnuts are safe. In the past we have manufactured some items for Wild Country, including Rocks, but in 2010, they chose to move their production elsewhere. All equipment manufactured at DMM in Llanberis meets and exceeds the required safety standards and passes through our strict quality control process. For 20 years we have used the same highly skilled operators, machines, tools, material suppliers, and production methodolgy to manufacture our Wallnuts successfully."

In reply to FreshSlate:

"> If the larger nuts are failing at below 7kn which I severely doubt."

Well you do have to read between the lines to glean that information but if you read Richie Pattersons post above:

"In a very small number of cases the failure load was below the units rated strength and in some cases below 7kN; a peak load that can be realistically achieved during a fall.”"

I assumed that only made sense in context of a nut that you would expect to fail at 12kn and testing at 60% (7.2kn) would have highlighted this. You'll have to quiz Richie your self for more precise info.

I'd personally like to see gear rated at 12kn and above pull tested to 8kn before it leaves the factory as according to WC most real world falls are under 8kn on the gear (see WC website for more info)

Sounds like Remus schooled you more than me

Stevo

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Yeah possibly or he could be talking about no.1 rocks failing (he does say 'some') in which case all the other nuts could have easily failed above 7.2, but should still be recalled. Who knows, if they have 12kn nuts failing below 7kn then there's obviously something gone horribly wrong. We are both assuming things right now.

Yeah I know, the 60% wouldn't be much reassurance with smaller pieces. If 12kn pieces are failing below 8kn then I will agree with that.


I see you have calmed down now .

In reply to remus:

Well spotted Remus, DMM no longer manufacture nuts for WC.

In reply to remus:
Am I imagining things, or do I detect just a teensy tiny bit of schadenfreude there?

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:
You'll notice this reply is directed at Martin Atkinson but really I am addressing the whole thread. I address Martin out of respect, where else would you find the boss of a world wide manufacturing industry addressing his customers directly and personally? The boss of BMW addressing his mini customers about the mini power steering problems perhaps? In your dreams! Respect Martin, your company continues to lead the way in design, quality and aftercare.
The present times have put an unknown financial outcome squeeze on a small part of British industry and I hope WC can weather the storm. This recall has actually worked well for me personally, my 2 sets of classics was due for renewal after this winter years old, many of which took a fall> so I’ll take my 2 new sets with glee. Would this stop me be buying WC ever again? Would it f**k! This only serves to reinforce the brand and the aftercare and I only hope others can see this for what it is – fantastic aftercare the likes of what you could only wish for with other brands. The price you pay for gear is unbelievably small compared to other weekend hobbies, I’m an angler too and it isn’t at all uncommon to break a pole or rod section, £70 gone in an instant on a new section without a thought. A set of wires costs not much more than that and they last for years with proper application. That’s the thing, climbing gear is expendable. It has a life and a sacrificial life too, I’m quite happy to leave slings and crabs all over the mountains as I retreat in safety, wise up guys, its only gear. If you are stepping onto a route, no matter if it is an E3 or a VDiff, don’t expect your gear to save your life. Ultimately it is YOU that has that choice, get on the dance floor knowing the risks or stay at the bar watching everyone else…. The gear is there to give you a chance that’s all and there are no guarantees, there are just so many variables.
A couple of examples to put this context. Recently I have been involved with a Nissan Pirmera action group to get Nissan to at least acknowledge they made a boo-boo. Basically there is an electronic fault on the Primera that renders the car almost undriveable, Glue was applied by a circuit board subcontractor to a circuit board to stop a couple of coils from buzzing. Over time the glue has deteriorated to an extent where it has lost its elasticity so when the ambient temperature falls to a certain level, the glue shrinks and pulls a transistor off the board. This renders the driver display inoperable – no audio control, no heater control, no rear demister etc. The car is drivable but in winter with fogged up glass it is dangerous. Nissan have answered - basically it is out of warranty so not our problem. (how could Nissan know his would happen?) That has nothing to do with climbing so I’ll expand further.
A few years back I devised a ‘repair’ to fix the awful design of the release wires on Omega Pacific link cams. The cams may well be the butt of ridicule on the forums however, these clever cams worked well once the mechanics and- application was fully understood. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating swapping your ten cams for 3 link cams but they had their place. I’ve a guide friend who loved them, he did the same routes week in week out and carrying 2 linkers (rather than a set of conventional cams) proved to be very worthwhile in terms of speed, weight and simplicity. Omegas customer service was terrible, despite the MD of Omega posting on UKC how committed they were to sorting the release wires they simply would not even answer any of my many emails. Such a shame, great idea, great design (application limitations accepted) but basically Omega have flicked the bird at us ‘Out of warranty, not our problem’
Talking of cam release wires, in my honest option WC came up with the only user friendly repair kit with their flexi friend repair kit thanks to some very clever design on the trigger bar and a reslinging service to boot…..
Problem with Wild country? I certainly don’t think so!
I apologise in advance for waffling, I’m not a Wild County tart although I do have a certain affinity with WC, I’ve been buying gear for 30 years. Clog, HB, Kong, Faders, name them all. WC was always the quality brand for me. I was a mere underling when cams came out and we were talking a weeks wage to buy one! If you at are at all worried go buy a set of walnuts or whatever. DMM will give you the same customer service as WC have here. Nobody is immune to failure WC, DMM or anyone else. Lets not play this off as DMM vs WC, DMM had problems too (remember the dragon recall?) Let’s see this for what is truly is – British manufacturing, when we get it right it is a world beater, design, application and aftercare. Simple.

In reply to wilkie14c:
Congratulations ...best thing I have read on this post.

Thanks for all the constructive comments in this thread, obviously the recall is frustrating for all of you now without a good proportion of your gear for the weekend (I was praying for rain!). However, it seems that you have recognised that these things can happen even to the most reputable of outdoor gear companies and in fact the outdoor community is best served by suppliers facing their responsibilities and issuing recalls when necessary.

Thanks for that, I can assure you that the reputable outdoor gear companies do talk together and we are working together to improve safety within the outdoor gear industry.

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:
Can you answer a couple more questions?

Was it some of the 12kn units that were failing at under 7kn? If not what was the lowest limit you found a 12kn unit failing at.

Also with regards to this post:

"During manufacture we conduct “in-process” tensile testing to destruction, we test product at the commencement of manufacture of each batch (“first-off”), at the end of each batch (“last-off”) and one unit every 100 produced. However, this testing did not identify this problem at the point of manufacture. As a consequence we have reviewed quality assurance procedures and implemented proof loading to a safe working load of all units produced."

What is the percentage safe working load of the rated limit that you will be testing units to?

Would this new procedure have picked up some of the current faults before they would have left the factory?

In reply to CurlyStevo: Coel is correct. If you pulled every nut to its rated limit, you are effectively deatroying that unit. You would not see the same residual strength on the next test, you would most likely see some inelastic deformation of the unit and it would mean you would have to bin it. It would be a destructive test each time.

For example, a cams axle will start to see inelastic deformation at 7kN plus (or there abouts if you want to achieve a decent rating). So you definitely would not want to load every helium cam to 100% of its rating or you wouldn't have any left to sell.

Totems proof loading, if it was carried through from CCH was a 60% proofloading of the stem unit only. At 60% of full load, you would see significant crushing of the cam lobes. As you will no doubt remember there were serious issues with the silver soldering process at CCH meaning that many stems were failing at very low loads, so they took to proofloading each stem.

In reply to mike kann:

Mike I assume you read my reply to Coel and its pretty clear you are taking what I said out of context if you reread the thread, but I'll reiterate for you the caveat I used "Assuming pulling nuts to their rated limit doesn't harm them in any way".


That's quite an assumption and I suspect incorrect mike not only regarding the type of proof loading but also that it would crush the lobes. They clearly state here "Each Totem Cam is tensile-tested to 60% of its rated strength" ( http://www.totemcams.com/files/galeria/files/TotemCamInstructionsForUse.pdf ). So this isn't just the basic cams its the stemless totem cams too. I don't see how you could proof test a totem cam without actually engaging the cam heads (these cams can not be passively loaded). As regarding crushing the lobes of the basic cam I doubt either of us know for sure but I doubt the alloy on the basic cams is that soft( although as we both know the alloy is softer than on most other cams)

Incidentally Metolius also individually test their cams to 50% of their rated strength ( http://www.metoliusclimbing.com/pdf/cam-manual.pdf ) . If you hunt about you'll find a lot of manufacturers doing similar now a days.

Also you can see a dragon cam lifting a boulder that weighs the equivalent of a 13.8kn force on the cam here http://dmmclimbing.com/news/2010/03/dragon-cam-v-a-big-boulder/ the cam seems to function just fine afterwards and doesn't appear deformed.

In reply to CurlyStevo: In reply to CurlyStevo: Stevo, why the no love? All I'm doing is stating what I categorically know, in terms of what CCHs procedures were post stem failures - I was friends with the UK distributor at the time and he asked my opinion. Before the failures there was no proof loading whatsoever, and it was only brought in to ensure that the silver soldering was up to standard. I.e. you would not have to load the cam lobes to ensure the stem was working well. The inherent nature of cam lobes is that if you use a consistent batch of material and are machining from flat as aliens were, you would not need to test the lobes. All the forces are compressing the lobes, so rather than leaving witness marks on the lobes, test the stem and then assemble. And of course you could test the large totems prior to assembly. It just depends on what order you are assembling them in. You can proof load a nut cable, so why would you not be able to assemble the cam lobe and load wire and then test? Just saying like. Where there is a will and there is always going to be more than one way to skin a cat.

As for lobe crushing, that could be anywhere from indentations, to serious crushing, depending on the materials used, the surface finishes applied etc. and whilst I take your point re the dragons or any other cam for that matter, I don't agree that its necessarily a required process. The simple fact is that any unit like this has several highly safety critical parts. Of these, the stem is by far the most important, as it is constructed from separate parts, and the joint between those parts if it fails, causes complete unit failure. Stems are the single most safety critical item in a cam - as is the swage in the case of a nut, with several ways in which it can fail. So proof loading a stem makes eminent sense as they are generally not going to be damaged in anyway by proofloading, whereas proofloading a cam lobe, well, there are so many modes of loading a lobe, which one are you going to choose? How do you ensure that the lobe is unmarked? What if the imperfections in the material or forging only show themselves in a particular orientation?

And yes the dragon operates. Do you know for sure that the axles have not bent? Do you know that the lobes haven't deformed at all? Are you 100% certain that what you are seeing here is totally as it seems? It may well be, but then again it may not...

I guess all I'm saying is that WC is not alone in having had manufacturing problems. Dmm had to recall the dragons initially because the stems were failing. Totem recalled their cams as they found the holding power to be reduced by the anodising. BD have also had plenty. The important thing is that they have picked up on it and are sorting it out.

In reply to mike kann:

Totem are not CCH so I think applying CCH methodology to Totem especially the Totem cam doesn't add up.

I'll quote you what totem and Metolius say again:

"Each Totem Cam is tensile-tested to 60% of its rated strength"
"All cams are individually tested to half their rated strength"

I really don't think this can be interpreted in any other way, if they had only tested the stem or some of the components in isolation they can't say they've individually tested every cam, they would be setting them selves up for litigation IMO.

>

Mike on the link I posted before you'll note DMM say:
"It is worth noting that the cam still works perfectly after having been used to lift the block." ( http://dmmclimbing.com/news/2010/03/dragon-cam-v-a-big-boulder/ ) You also get a very good look at the cam as he removes it from the block and it looks undamaged after being loaded to over 13.8kn


I totally agree with this and I'd like to add I've used wild country rocks since I started climbing and will continue to use them (when I get my recalls back)

In reply to CurlyStevo: To be fair, I said IF totems production system has been carried over from CCH. I also clearly stated that I don't know anything about Totems production.

As normal, you are painting things as black and white. All I'm trying to do is point out that it doesn't work like that, and that there are plenty of greys in between. My point was entirely that the way in which individual companies set their quality procedures is self governed and self determined. If one decides that 50% proof loading of the safety critical items constitutes proof loading of the system, then its irrelevant what you think that proof loading might be. They are not lying, because they have decided what they feel to be the required level of safety and certainty they are happy with, and what constitutes that system and what constitutes a pass.

At the end of the day, they don't want to kill anybody, so they do think about it long and hard. 3 sigma is only a tool to describe the certainty with which that company feels they can certify the units, which by their nature cannot all be tested to full rating. There is nothing to prescribe in legal standards what those levels or systems have to be - that is the nature of CE marking - it is the companies responsibility and is the same for all products on the marketplace. So regardless of all that we've been discussing, whether lobes crush, or whether the cams are proof loaded or not, its up to the company to decide how they go about making sure they don't kill anybody.

Some companies take these things to the extreme, Wild Country being one of them. They have recalled on the basis of one field failure and some failures during proof loading literally thousands of units and are footing the bill for replacement. That would suggest a pretty serious dedication to safety, and they are implementing procedures to ensure it doesn't happen again. There are plenty of companies out there who would not take it as seriously, and set their standards considerably lower so that they don't have as high a hurdle to jump. And of course you won't know which one is which from a cursory glance.

In reply to mike kann:
Well yes and no, the QC system has to be approved and monitored by the notified body and is part of the certification. The manufacturer can put in place any system he wishes but whether it would be approved is another matter.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I would be unwilling to use gear by a company that don't recall products when they find a fault. A company who is transparent and honest about issues they've found? definitely one to trust. loooking forward to my free quickdraw too, what a nice gesture.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

So where are Rocks now manufactured? (Adding finishing touches doesn't count as manufacturing) Martin? Richie?

My guess is WC went offshore to cut costs and this has now come back to bite them.

In reply to flaneur:
According to their specific sheet, they are made in China. Superlight rocks and mini rocks (not subject to recall) are made in the UK.

In reply to UKC Gear:

7 new rocks to return here.

I reckon a set of 5 QDs in compensation 7;^)

In reply to UKC Gear: Worth noting I think mine were bought as a set and if not then at least mostly at the same time and not all but some need returning.

On the plus side for Gooutdoors who often get a hard time (often justafiably) they telephoned mrsthedog who has the card and informed us of the recall.

In reply to Toreador:

Thanks for that. The Wild Country website is rather coy in this regard, which usually means one thing.

In reply to UKC Gear: What was the reason they gave for the recall taking a while to sort? Don't remember reading 'because we need to ship them in from china'. Though feel free to correct me, I'm not sure.

Decided to be less lazy .

"The factory in Tideswell has an output practically limited by raw material availability and production capacity. When we are able to judge the rate of return of product we will post regular updates to keep customers informed of the anticipated delay."

In reply to puppythedog:
"On the plus side for Gooutdoors who often get a hard time (often justafiably) they telephoned mrsthedog who has the card and informed us of the recall."

That's top service I on the other hand went in to RockOn at Craggy Island the other day and had to point out the rocks they were selling had been recalled (I knew the codes and checked a few quickly), they seemed not the least bit interested.

In reply to CurlyStevo: Not so good.

In reply to puppythedog:
On the plus side they do have the best selection and stock of sizes in climbing shoes I've seen in southern England.

In reply to puppythedog:

Yup, I got a call from Gooutdoors as well, for one rock that I bought over 2 years ago. Impressive customer service.

Nothing that is manufactured can be guaranteed to be perfect. The sign of a good manufacturer is how they deal with situations like this. I think WC have handled this superbly.

In reply to CurlyStevo: I think the member of staff working that day was a bit embarassed that you'd caught him out! Thanks for bringing those stray few to our attention. We have now sent them back to Wild Country to follow the rest of them that went earlier. Incidentally it was the same member of staff who first spotted the recall situation and brought it to the attention of the other Rock On shops on the day that the recall was announced, so he gets a pat on the back for that one. If anyone finds they have recalled Rocks on their rack, they should send them back to Wild Country directly to claim their free quickdraw! Thanks again and happy climbing! - Rock On

I posted my set of rocks back on the afternoon they announced the recall.
Today I received an email:
Dear customer,
We confirm that we have received your shipment <ref number>.
We will inspect the item/items as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Your service portal team.

So, errr.. something is happening. I'd imagine they're pretty swamped.

In reply to orangebox:
Good to hear I did think about ringing head office just to tell them that they were still selling recalled kit, but I couldn't find a head office to ring!

To Wild Country:
There seems to be a potential bug in your returns system. I listed a company as part of my address yet that didn't get listed on the printed address label (but the rest of the address did). This isn't too worrying as I'm sure the parcell will get to you.

However I'm sure I'm not the only person here that when you post the replacement nuts to me if you don't list my company as part of the address they will probably not get to me.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Do you ever address your concerns to the person involved or, rather, are your utterances aimed at the public?

You are developing some form here.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Firstly I posted in reply to Wild Country (not you or the public), secondly I have also already emailed them.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

youtube.com/watch?v=eoBYYElyP4c&

In reply to mike kann:

Hi Mike,

Totem didn't bring production procedures over from CCH. As far as I know they never had any conytact with CCH at all although I haven't discussed it specifically with them. The Totem Basic isn't an Alien but a faithfulish copy with some improvements - notably of the braizing which is where CCH had the problems.

The braizing of the stem to axle join is done by filling from the bottom up to a pre-drilled exit hole so that you can be sure it is totally filled. Apparently Hugh Banner pioneered the method for HB Quadcams.

If you're still in touch with Jim please tell him I said hi.

Cheers, Iain
(Beta Climbing Designs, UK distributors for Totem)

In reply to IainWhitehouse: fair does. As I say, only know what CCH did. So for the record, how do totem proofload? Lobes included? Yeah I'm still in touch with Jim... Spoke to him yesterday actually! He's living in your home town now... I remember seeing a very early prototype of hughs in his tub of bit I made earlier... As i recall it was actually a WC flexible friend, and i seem to remember him saying he worked for them at one stage... Dunno if my memory is failing me though... Nice chap!

In reply to UKC Gear: very impressed by Go Outdoors action in mailing all customers who they have on record as buying the affected gear. Well done Go Outdoors.

In reply to mike kann:
I blasted an email over to Metolius and Totem. Only heard back from Metolius and they say they proof test the final units (to 50% of rated strength) but before they put the sling on and they do actually engage the cam lobes.

In reply to KTC:
And today I got an email stating:


So things are on the move. Hopefully.

In reply to mike kann: I actually don't know to be honest. I would need to ask Mikel but he's not avaialable at the moment (as the other poster above found trying to email him).
Hopefully I'll speak to him next week so will try to remember to ask him and let you know.

Iain

In reply to CurlyStevo: Steve, you do realise that my point was that the company determines what constitutes proofloading don't you? That it can take many shapes and forms. The information above is actually incomplete. Even now, we don't know what constitutes engaging the lobes. Does it mean in a typical placement, if so at 3/4 open, 1/2 open, fully open, closed, or does it mean they put it in a pocket to help avoid damage to the cam lobes, or does it mean in a passive placement using the cam stops to apply load, or some other technique of loading it. You seem to continue with this idea that proofloading means proofloading and that means they load it just like in the real world... they may well do, but they don't have to. Just saying like.

In reply to IainWhitehouse: Cheers. Not really necessary, as I was not trying to do down anybody, just trying to point out to Stevo there's more than one way to skin a cat.

In reply to mike kann:
Mike so far the cat was skinned how I said it would be. Did you not read my last post about Metolius proof testing finished units and engaging the cam lobes and also the post a way back up the thread about the DMM cam 'working perfectly' after being tested to the rated strength (by lifting a block)?

I'm getting a bit of deja vu here regarding a certain helium cam thread where you were very dismissive of my theory however after I provided pretty concrete picture evidence showing my workings you said "not had a chance to draw this out... Dont fear I will do" and of course never did.

In reply to mike kann:

Never said different, just I think when they say "All cams are individually tested to half their rated strength" and "Each Basic Cam is tensile-tested to 60% of its rated strength" I think that means the finished unit is tested by engaging the lobes (and by implication pulling the other end) and not just some component of it prior to assembly, you argued it might not mean that, and with respect to Metolius at least you were wrong.


I never said it was tested as in the real world.

It'll be interesting to see how totem test their basic cams, not only to see if the finished units are tested rather than some component of it but you also claimed "At 60% of full load, you would see significant crushing of the cam lobes", something I am doubtful of (but not sure either way).

In reply to CurlyStevo: Oh FFS Stevo. I said IF totem carried over their testing from CCH, then proofloading meant proofloading of the stem only. I never said anything about what Metolius or Totem do or don't do. I can state what I stated about CCH because I can categorically state it as true. On their gumpf they stated proofloaded, which meant the stem only had been proofloaded, and this was at a time when they held CE certification so their process had been approved.

As for lobe crushing, it will depend on cam material, cam design, finish etc. but as I have already said, if you load a cam in a real world simulation, you will most likely get some witness marking, either in the form of dents or surface bruising, or removal of surface finish etc. which is not ideal i.e. significant from a sales point of view. Hence you have to find a way of doing it without marking the lobes. If that's what Metolius do, then fine. And that doesn't constitute a real world loading as the lobes will be better supported. Better support will spread the load and reduce the chance of marking. You can be doubtful all you like, but would you really expect a cam that's been loaded to 7kN to exhibit not a single mark if you'd placed it in a crack?

In reply to mike kann:
Can you stop putting words in my mouth please where did I say this?

"would you really expect a cam that's been loaded to 7kN to exhibit not a single mark if you'd placed it in a crack?"

It seems to me you are very happy to challenge what I say in a condesending manner until evidence to the contrary emerges at which point you just change your stance.

Also you have made some pretty sweeping statements like there will be witness marks and lobe deformation if the cams are proof tested by engaing the lobes, without qualifying HOW the proof loading occurs. When this gets atleast partially proved wrong instead of backing down you just further qualify your sweeping statements (by saying in real world simulation) and accuse me of saying things I never even said (this isn't the first time you've tried this). I certainly never implied the proof testing was a real world simulation or the cams had to be placed in an actual rock crack.

In reply to UKC Gear: "Which isn't actually that great for gear you are trusting your life to. I've noticed some products I've bought recently every unit is pull tested, I think really this is the way to go."

Based on what? Here is what I don't get about what you think.

This is what you replied to my very first post. I merely stated what 3 sigma was. Not whether it was good or bad. I replied to that basically saying that atleast with 3 sigma you know what it means - it is a standardised approach. Which proofloading isn't, which is a fact - eg totem loads to 60%, Metolius to 50%. Well OK grand apart from you didn't even compare what that means. For example a green basic goes to 7kN rating. i.e. 60% is 4.2kN. Metolius blue which is approx the same size(slightly smaller infact) and tested to 50% goes to 5kN. So 60% which sounds so good isn't as good as what Metolius does.

All 3 sigma is stating is that above that proof load the manufacturer is 0.01% uncertain that the unit will reach the rated strength in a perfect placement, on a brand new unit and generally in perfect conditions i.e. a lab and in static, not dynamic loading. It could in blue metolius's case reach 9kN which is still 2kN better than totems rating. i.e. it's still incredibly unlikely to fail. So 1 in 100 units will possibly fail at a rating lower than 3sigma from that specified - and you don't know whether that to be at 5kn or 9kN.

You seem to think that proofloading would eliminate all problems. It only eliminates the problem up to that load. What if there is a problem that only reveals itself at 8kN or above and you are proofloading to 5kN. What does that tell you? Absolutely eff all. The units would pass your 50% tensile test but not when you take a proper big winger. But if you can't test to 100% load because a) you potentially bend the axle, b) you kink the eye wire and most likely start to cause problems in the sling, c) damage the lobes d) damage the plastic tubing over the thumbloop then what other method should you use for analysing potential failures?

In reply to CurlyStevo: Stevo, the statements are based on having seen camlobes after they have been tested in the CE standard fixture (i.e. not a crack) to those sorts of loads. I have stated repeatedly now that unless you support the lobe in another way you will see marks. Simply because in my experience its frigging true. If you want to take that as condescending then knock yourself out.

Just had a email, wildcountry have give instructions for the delivery of the replacement items good news hopefully should get them in the next few days . First class service from wildcountry

In reply to mike kann:
Mike is this ground hog day or what? You've just gone all the way around to the start of the argument again!!!

"I have stated repeatedly now that unless you support the lobe in another way you will see marks"

No Mike this is a point you have only further quialified in the last few posts you actually said as a general point.

"Totems proof loading, if it was carried through from CCH was a 60% proofloading of the stem unit only. At 60% of full load, you would see significant crushing of the cam lobes."

"You seem to think that proofloading would eliminate all problems"
There you go again putting words in my mouth again. I was merely pointing out I think proof testing is a good idea. I never said it should replace the sigma rateing and that's certainly not something I would advocate!!!

I look forward to hearing from totem.

In reply to CurlyStevo: If I'm doing it so are you. IF. Seeing as we've had the distributor of totem saying that they weren't related, then its pretty unlikely isn't it. And I said as much. Repeatedly. And I'm sorry, but I thought it would be reasonably obvious after stating what I mean't a couple of posts after the one you've highlighted, that crushing could just mean marking. And I'm sorry that I didn't state that I knew that after having seen cam lobes after a CE test. My point I feel has been pretty clear all the way through that proofloading means different things to different people. I stated examples of this that I KNOW to be true. You can disbelieve me if you like. I don't really care.

You still haven't said what you should do if 3 sigma is not that good, what would be better. Are you going to be asking Camp, black diamond, wired Bliss, rock empire etc what they do as well?

In reply to mike kann:
I wasn´t aware of any information that Camp or Rock Empire (to pick two) used a 3 sigma QA system and certainly know a few other companies that don´t.
I don´t either.

In reply to jimtitt: I was meaning with regards to their proofloading programmes. Bets on proofloading if they don't 3 sigma test?

In reply to mike kann:
There are loads of products you can´t proof test (I use proof test to mean load up to or beyond the rated strength), partial proof testing is usefull for some items which have for example complex assembly but for a lot of climbing gear a fairly unrealistic indicator as well.
3 Sigma is only predictive and depends on accurately establishing a normal population and more importantly maintaining it, if you break the first 100 of an item to get the data you need to be absolutely sure you don´t chaange something (like move production to China).
The concept that you can use a statistical theory which tells you what percentage of a product will fail below its rated load is an anathema to me. There is no provision for this in the CE system for PPE and it it illegal to sell ANY item which does not achieve it´s rated strength. The aim must be to achieve a failure rate of zero by design and process control.

In reply to jimtitt:

I would expect most every day PPE to be designed with a significant safety factor, and it's rating to express a safe working limit rather than its ultimate strength. This was certainly the case with a tool manufactured by my old employer - failure consistently around 25 bar, state 8 bar as the safe limit. The other thing about CE marking is that you do some initial tests (as little as 3), and a risk assessment, and hey presto - CE mark is all yours. You only need test again if something significant changes (geometry, material choice, etc), no batch testing required.

3 sigma, based on what little I know, sounds a far more robust system to me.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I've just returned a couple and the package was returned to me almost by next post. Take care with the postage label! Although clearly marked "Sender" the post office sorters ignored and sent it back to me. Anyone else had this or is it just me?

In reply to jimtitt:

>The aim must be to achieve a failure rate of zero by design and process control.

These two statements seem contradictory to me. As your second statement implies, mistakes will always slip through the cracks leading to the odd piece of gear that isn't up to strength, the aim is of course to minimise the number of mistakes. Yet in your first statement you say that trying to quantify the size of these errors and mistakes is an inherently bad thing. How are you meant to measure changes and improvements in your processes if you can't even quantify the effects of those changes on your products?

In reply to remus:
As your second statement implies, mistakes will always slip through the cracks leading to the odd piece of gear that isn't up to strength, the aim is of course to minimise the number of mistakes.

I didn´t imply (or even write) that, I wrote the aim is to achieve a zero failure rate.
Process control is simple and has nothing to do with 3 Sigma or any other statistical analysis, a good QA system will ensure that the parameters established are maintained and a robust QC system will identify if this is the case.
The problem with a statistical approach is that all the parameters will never be included in the model, when the population was produced to obtain a 3 Sigma rating circumstances may be different to another day and unless you are continously refining your population your screwed. Unless the sample is gigantic and covers an extremely long period the model will not identify that on Thursdays the machine operator goes down the social club and has a few too many, that two years down the line the checker has given birth to a difficult child and doesn´t get much sleep and so on. In a well run factory there are systems in place to catch these, the first line of defence being the foreman/chargehand who knows his workforce and their weaknesses, then there are line inspectors and so on.
Moving production to countries with less refined social systems and more competitive work practices only make it more likely that failures will occur.

I´ve spent most of my life working on single or short run items where a statistical approach is impossible so we attack in a different direction and the correct working and social environment is where you start and for a quality product this is the way it is, even the giants of the car industry struggle with this issue when they produce away from their home base.

If 3 Sigma is a useful tool for QA then how come DMM had to recall Dragon cams and Wild Country have been producing sub-standard nuts since 2010? Clearly it failed to predict or identify a possible cause of failure in the QC system, the problem with Wild Country was not identified by their QC system nor predicted by 3 Sigma but detected by failure in use.

In reply to jimtitt:
"3 Sigma is only predictive and depends on accurately establishing a normal population and more importantly maintaining it, if you break the first 100 of an item to get the data you need to be absolutely sure you don´t chaange something (like move production to China). "

The way I read the DMM 3 sigma system they apply it on every batch produced. Only doing it on the first batch wouldn't really guarentee much would it? Certainly if you then change factories. I don't know if the other companies that use 3 sigma also follow this system but it would seem logical atleast.

http://dmmprofessional.com/about/quality-assurance/

"Each operator is highly trained in the use of Statistical Process Control systems and on top of all the routine tests we run 3 sigma rating controls on each batch"

In reply to jimtitt: Hi Jim, I guess what I'm getting at is that realistically without going to each and every company who makes gear we won't know who proofloads, what items, to what level and in what way. I am pretty certain that there are companies out there who are not proofloading and relying on statistical analysis or batch testing methodologies for items which simply cannot be 100% proofloaded like your bolts. In your case its a total no brainer as it's not a problem to design a bolt which can be loaded to 100% load plus as weight is no object with glue in bolts. As I pointed out to Stevo quite a long way back up the page as you have aswell, the most important thing here is to control your manufacturing process. If you are able to accurately control material quality, forging, extruding, crimping processes etc adequately, in theory there will be no failures. Of course that's not realistic and you have to test. But my point to Stevo was that you can perfectly legitimately only proof load elements of the assembly to ensure that those particular parts are correctly assembled - like CCH did with their stems. It's no reflection on what anybody else does, just what they elected to do. And seeing as you can't 100% proofload cams then you have to come up with some other way of quantifying your certainty that the units will exceed their rated strength. That's all 3 sigma is about, so I'm not sure what Stevo expects in addition. Proofloading is not going to catch the units that fail at 12kN rather than 14kN - so what are the manufacturers realistically going to do? They can't put out units they can load to 100% as they'd never sell any because weight is so critical in climbing...

In reply to mike kann:

If your SPC is working the way it should you never get near to a point where failure is a possibility.

Does anyone know how long it should take to get them back? Mine were sent a week ago and nothing on the web about getting or returning them yet.

In reply to mike kann:
Proofloading to the relevant EN is just about out for all items of climbing equipment unless climbers accept an enormous hit weightwise, it is out for bolts as well as they do tend to bend a fair bit. The EN for us requires a multiple partial proof (for no good reason that I can detect) but accepts the bolt will permenantly distort and no longer conforms to the dimensional requirements. Luckily we can design in plenty of excess strength for the bit that matters and the simplicity of bolts means process control is reasonable to very easy.
For something like a cam it´s complicated though in some ways there is an advantage in that the manufacturer can decide what strength rating they will give it after they´ve tested a load of them. Catching outliers is still an issue and more importantly ensuring they never occur in the first place which is where robust QC and process control is at the heart of the matter, relying on statistics doesn´t fill me with confidence!

relying on statistics doesn´t fill me with confidence!

And yet that's how the Japanese wiped out the UK TV,Bike and Car industries.

In reply to KTC:


Has anyone else heard anything? I've not heard a whisper yet, but I do appreciate it could take a long time!

In reply to NottsRich:

I'm in the same situation having posted mine back on the 10th. I politely inquired if mine had arrived and they replied the same day saying:

"We have received a huge number of Rocks and are working as quickly as possible, as soon as your returns have been scanned into the system, you will get an automated confirmation by email."

This was followed by a verbatim copy of the original statement about production limitations etc.

I think the handful of people who have had confirmations probably got their returns in very promptly, and there's just a very big pile of packages to work through.

In reply to JulianB: Ditto here sent mine back on the 11th & nothing yet.But dont expect to hear much till Mid-November with the amount of nuts being returned.

In reply to Os_878: I've been late to reply, TBH i'm not expecting mine back til the new year.

In reply to NottsRich: I sent my 20 back a day after the recall, just got an email back stating, due to the amount of returns, they are re-commencing UK production, but cannot give a dispatch date.

Mixed feelings on this, obvious frustration which a new quick draw won't make up for the inconvenience of having to borrow friends gear for recent trips. (however, weather has meant these were not needed), but also a respect that they took the decision to act quickly, rather than wait to build up stock supplies before announcing(although this probably was never an option for them)

In reply to mike kann:

Indeed. Well, I've started that ball rolling.....I spoke to Mikel today and the long and short of it is that:

Totems are tested to 60% load when fully assembled, but the sling is not loaded during the test. The lobes are also supported in a shaped nylon block to avoid the lobe damage you describe from EN tests. There is a picture of the testing near the bottom of this blog post which shows the setup: http://www.totemcams.com/blog/archives/108?lang=eu

Totem Basics have only the stem, braize and swage tested after part-assembly, to 5kN. Again the sling isn't tested and the lobes and axle aren't even on in this case.

I planned to pm this to you to avoid dragging the thread on any further but since you seem to be getting flamed and this is all along the lines you predicted I thought I'd post for all to see.

Iain

In reply to UKC Gear: has anybody had problems with the company reciving the wires disputing what they have recived??

In reply to IainWhitehouse: cheers for that.

In reply to NottsRich: I was too eager in asking that - now received an email.


Dear Customer,
We confirm that we have received your shipment RECXXXXXXXXXX.
We will inspect the item/items as soon as possible.

Me too now - posted 1st class 10 October, receipt confirmed 23 October.

I wonder how many people are just returning so they get a nice new shiny set of nuts. It has taken years for me to lose the bumbly shine on mine. I take it my classics would be replaced with classics and not those new coloured things?

In reply to jimtitt:

3 Sigma can obviously be a useful tool without being the complete answer. In the case of DMM, the development of the (potential) failure was delayed and only happened after several weeks (due to a dodgy batch of aluminium) - presumably passing any 3 Sigma tests performed at manufacturers. I would argue they just got unlucky. DMM use plenty of other QA methods of course, just not one that caught the cam problem(s).

As for WC, I would never suggest that Chinese manufacturers occasionally cut corners to save money, possibly at the expense of safety. It's not like we shift production to China to cut costs after all...

In my last sport (fencing) there was a considerable issue with kit being made in China and sold by the major (fencing) retailers that was not up to the rated strength (or even close) despite being CE marked. Fortunately fencing is ridiculously safe sport where accidents almost never happen anyway. Unlike climbing where we need the gear to work...

In reply to andrewmcleod: interesting comparison to fencing worthy of another forum(?)
anyway trawling about found this comment on DMM 3sigma method at 22:40
http://dmmclimbing.com/news/2013/01/dmm-factory-tour-vid/

point being for crabs here expectation is mean failure is 1kn above rated strength so if this is similar to wires can we expect a sigma of 0.33kN (?) and so for the one field failure at 8kN this is (12-8)/0.33 or 12sigma from the mean population. The probability of failure here is so tiny i.e ppb that's why WC started the batch testing on 17k pieces leading on to the recall.

WC any chance you could publish your new quality approach or is it it too early? thanks.

In reply to UKC Gear: Walked into Cotswold yesterday in Brighton, they had the full range of single coloured rocks. I spoke to a number of members of staff and explained the recal - none ( inc the guy in charge knew anything about it). So I showed him the website and info - loads of the stock on display/sale was subject of the recal. I better speak to head office he said.
Some ten minutes later all the stock was still there, even after I told him it might be an idea to remove them - kinda sums up what I already think about them !

In reply to Ciderslider:

'Telling tales on the internet', is it a psychological condition?

In reply to Mike Highbury: Na, I suppose I just wanted to share my disappointment at their ineptitude

In reply to Ciderslider:
On a positive note; I received a letter from "Go Outdoors" advising me to check the batch no' on the ones I had purchased and advised me of the re-call. Quite professional I thought.

In reply to jim jones: That's very good service - can't imagine Cotswold doing anything like that

In reply to jim jones: gooutdoors sent me a letter ,called me and a email first class service i would say.

In reply to NottsRich:

Just got notification of reciept (16 days after sending)

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya: Oh dear. I've just received this:

>....Unfortunately we have experienced a glitch in the database which we are using to manage the recall. This has resulted in our inadvertently sending out an email to a limited number of people suggesting that replacements are "imminent". Sadly this is not the case, it will be a little more time until we are ready to begin sending out replacement product.....

So I guess it's not happening any time soon

In reply to Ciderslider:

Maybe that's because Go Outdoors have all of your details on file when you become a "member" (i.e. buy their discount card)? It's easy for a computer to do the rest.

In reply to Martin1978:
I wonder if cotswold do the same for cotswold members?

In reply to CurlyStevo: Dunno. I wonder how many other stores have contacted their customers? Wouldn't be difficult for any of the stores with web-ordering to do?

In reply to Martin1978:
and the ever increasing number of stores with loyalty cards. I'm pretty impressed with Go outdoors in this regard.

In reply to Ciderslider:
Ditto - had the same problem in the Preston store. They don't have a bloody clue

FYI, there was an update today - essentially saying they're awaiting certification and will be shipping imminently.

http://www.wildcountry.com/community/latest-news/2013/11/12/Wild_Country_Ro...

Has anyone heard any more since the last 'shipping is imminent' update?

In reply to NottsRich:

Not yet, was hoping the last update meant they were only a week or so away. Unfortunately that doesn't seem so ..

In reply to CMcBain:

Are we there yet? Has anyone seen a replacement arrive? I sent mine on day of recall. Nothing yet for me

In reply to KTC:

I sent mine in on the day of the recall too and have heard nothing back yet.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Today I sent an e-mail asking them to refund the purchase price if they cannot deliver within the next two weeks. Don't suppose it will make any difference.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I sent an email last week. The reply was "looking at when you returned yours, within the next 7 - 10 days." I returned my rocks within the first week of the recall.

I am also proper annoyed. 3 climbing trips having to beg and borrow gear!

In reply to mh554:

I called WC on Friday and a very friendly person explained that a large batch of rocks had been manufactured but had to be sent to an office on the continent before being dispatched. While no promises were made, I was told that hopefully the first consignments should be sent out within 2 - 3 weeks..

In reply to UKC Gear:

I sent an email on November 9th and on the 11th I received this reply:


Hi Neil,i


We will replace your returned product as quickly and efficiently as possible with new Rocks. These Rocks are being produced with a fully reviewed manufacturing process and an enhanced testing/quality control program. We have received a huge number of Rocks and are working as quickly as possible, as soon as your returned have been scanned into the system, you will get an automated confirmation by email.


We will endeavor to replace returned product as soon as possible. However our factory in Tideswell in the UK has an output practically limited by raw material availability and production capacity. When we are able to judge the rate of return of product we will post regular updates to keep customers informed of the anticipated delay.

I am really sorry that this will cause you inconvenience, however we felt that it was more important to announce the recall as quickly as possible rather than delay until we had a stock of replacement product. We will do everything we can to get the rock back to you as quickly as possible.

Let us know if you need more information.

Best regards

Wild Country quality team.



No word since.

In reply to neilwiltshire:

In summary, I think everybody appreciates the fact that Wild Country issued a prompt recall but it's a bit much expecting us to wait so long for replacements. We're talking about one of the biggest climbing equipment manufacturers on the planet and I would have expected them to ensure the remanufacture of Rocks a priority rather than coming up with reasons (or excuses) about output being limited to raw material or production capacity. I sent back 2 x sets of Rocks just after the recall and don't think the 'compensation' offer of a single quickdraw really cuts it (considering the cost of my recorded delivery postage and the time delay). I'm not angry, just a little disappointed.....

In reply to johnt:

Could not agree any more! I am in the same situation with 2 and a half sets....

In reply to Ray Sparks:

Been waiting 7 weeks!

In reply to skizxi:
I was on the phone to them , they have to send them away to Italy to there parent company who then send them back to wild country ,then they get sent out to you. She said we would not get them back for this year.Just keeping thinking of your free quickdraw that we get.

In reply to ianj:

Just keeping thinking of your free quickdraw that we get.

Yeah great, my climbing is so often restricted by not having that one extra quickdraw <sarcastic smily>

In reply to johnt:

I understand your frustration, but what if their manufacturing output is actually limited by raw materials and/or production capacity? Particularly in a situation like this where I'd expect there to be even stricter quality controls than usual to make sure that the replacements don't suffer the same faults as the originals. I don't really know what you expect WC to do?

In reply to ianj:

Right so it's going to be at least 3 months?

It doesn't sound like anyone has had them back yet. If the production was limited surely they would come out in dribs and drabs.

Lucky its winter.... sorta

In reply to victim of mathematics:

I don't really know what you expect WC to do?

Their last update was on the twelfth of last month, in which they describe the delay was due to certification: -

http://www.wildcountry.com/community/latest-news/2013/11/14/Wild_Country_Ro...

Obviously that process is independent to Wild Country, but perhaps another update would be a good idea?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Well that's a fair point, but not what the poster I was replying to had complained about.

In reply to victim of mathematics:
I expect Wild Country to pull out all the stops and make every effort to sort this out as soon as possible - if they are doing that, then fine but there have been no regular updates to keep us informed and customers should not need to phone the company for an update. Have they really had difficulty in obtaining aluminium and stainless cable ? Have they been paying production staff overtime to increase production capacity ? I don't know but after reading the comments on here I don't for one minute believe the 'overwhelming majority of feedback has been positive' and if I don't believe that, I am inclined not to believe anything else they say. The bottom line is that this debacle may influence any potential future purchases that I may make and if customers end up feeling like that then they need to look at their contingency procedures for any similar problems.

In reply to victim of mathematics:


I expect WC to give proper information about timescales. They must know the total number of units recalled, and they must know the production capacity of their factory, and they must have a decent idea about timescales for CE certification and such like.

Thus they should, from the beginning, have been able to give a fair indication about timescales, yet they have never done so. It would be much more in their interests to say "we're really sorry, but it's likely to be five months", or whatever, than to not give timescales.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Completely agree. Regular (ish) updates are important, even if to announce delays. No updates just leave people guessing and getting annoyed I think.

In reply to NottsRich:

I asked them on Twitter and they said they had CE certification and were starting to pack and ship

https://twitter.com/wildcountryuk/status/405340831755694080

But then no update on the website which seems a bit odd

In reply to Removed Userfergie:

Yes ship them to Italy there parent company then they send them back to wild country who then send them to us .This is what I was told by wildcountry on the phone last night.

To a poster above, I believe wild country were genuine in that at the time of announcement of the recall most the feedback was positive. It was generally a 'good job for spotting this and owning up to it', just because the thought of a company doing the opposite is plain scary. I'm not sure how much weight I give the line 'we thought it was more important to let you know sooner rather than after we had built up a stockpile of replacements', as if there is morally any other option with safety critical gear.

While the above appears quite critical we have to remember that no one has died nor been injured. One failure in the field has prompted them to test and then recall, this is the positive feedback.

I do believe in keeping people updated, a lot of people haven't had things recalled so need to be kept in the loop, a month without contact is too long. Wild Country should rightly be criticised for this, after two months they should really be getting a rough estimate of the delay. I hope they have been addressing their aluminium stock shortage in this time.

A big part of the delay is obviously moving the production to the U.K back from China, which makes me wonder why the chinese factories could not make them to spec. They now have to source aluminium over here now. Wild Country have danced around the issue of their overseas production, of course people can be dogmatic about such things but moving production back to the U.K can only reinforce the idea that the Chinese can't be trusted to make this kind of equipment. The truth is, they can , but the real question is why have Wild country failed where Black Diamond succeeded?

In reply to johnt:

I agree with you absolutely when it comes to communication. One thing to bear in mind when you talk about inadequate compensation and paying production staff overtime is that the company has to remain solvent. If they go bust because they spent all their money rushing stock through production and certification , then nobody wins, either in the short term or the long term. If there's no company left than worrying about potential future purchases is somewhat redundant.

I don't want to come over as a WC apologist, and I'm waiting for returns myself, but I do think some people are being a bit short-sighted (not picking on you here particularly).

In reply to ianj:


Why? I'm lost for words here. I'm not aiming this at you!

In reply to FreshSlate:

It's something to do with a check list ,wildcountry send them straight out to you once they get back .The parent company want to do this way I was told last night , seems a crazy and waste of money if you ask me

In reply to ianj:

Presumably they will go to and from Italy in a lorry, then posted out from the UK - that has to be the most cost effective way of moving 70,000 plus units.

Chris

In reply to victim of mathematics:

I would not say anyone is being short-sighted, with lack of communication and lack of regular updates your customers will feel hard done by.

Regarding remaining solvent if your not pushing your company to the limit to get the new nuts back to customers and keep them happy you will have no future customers and therefore struggle to stay solvent.

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Well, I think we can all agree that the communication issue hasn't helped things. If i'm being short-sighted then Wild Country are being blind to customer relations and on the subject of money, Wild Country SHOULD be rushing stock through production and certification whatever their expense.
I'm fortunate that I have been able to afford to have a set of DMM Wallnuts as replacements but not everyone will be in the same situation. Rant over....

In reply to johnt:

Maybe thats the answer, replace with another brand and ask WC for a refund?

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Sorry if I've missed it but what's WCs' need to manufacture in the peak district, then ship to Italy and back? Are they getting CE marked there and if so why? Thanks.

In reply to UKC Gear:

surly they would only have to send samples to be CE'd?

In reply to neilwiltshire:


Has anyone received said confirmation?

I'm in NZ, the prescribed return address was local, I've not received a confirmation email so I doubt mine have made it abroad yet. I expected better given the reasonable turn around of Helium recalls.

WC should have added the process caveats with the recall as I expect it would be safer to have retained potentially compromised units for those w/out substitutes?

In reply to shumidrives:

I'm not sure just trying to fathom out why the extra expense and time - maybe it's part of the manufacturing process. I've dipped in and out of this post over the last few weeks and like others wish WC well with this but would like them to communicate more.

In reply to jvarmstrong:

Could it be that kong are there parent company in Italy ?

In reply to ianj:

Salewa

In reply to UKC Gear:
note for wild country.
dont rush making my new nuts, i want them to be perfect !!
Please keep me better informed on the delays
Thanks

Following the last update in mid November we have dispatched replacement product to non-European countries such as North America and Australia. We have also continued to ramp up production and have now built up considerable stocks, the CE certification has been issued and we are preparing packages for shipment to customers in Europe and the UK. We will have the majority of rocks returned to us replaced prior to Christmas. It has been quite a journey to get to this stage and I would really like to thank everyone for their patience and understanding.
As ever if you have any questions you can get in touch with us at: recall@wildcountry.com

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:

Ta muchley for the update

In reply to UKC Gear:

Much appreciated! Looking forward to getting my wires back.

In reply to Martin Atkinson, Wild Country:

In time for Christmas would be great. Thanks for the update.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Anyone had their rocks back yet? It's almost Xmas and not heard anything about mine yet.

In reply to fire_munki:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=572260

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Hi, I'd seen that which was why I asked if folks had had them yet since the note said before Christmas, which as my lack of present buying shows is almost upon us!

In reply to fire_munki:

well WC only issued the statement 2 working days ago so seems unlikely anyone would have actually received them yet!

In reply to fire_munki:

Nothing yet , anyone had their rocks back yet ?

In reply to ianj:

Nope.
Prior to which Christmas?

In reply to CurlyStevo:

well WC only issued the statement 2 working days ago so seems unlikely anyone would have actually received them yet!

http://www.wildcountry.com/community/latest-news/2013/12/07/Rock_Recall_Upd...


Hardly two working days and I would rather hope that Wild Country would have been working around the clock to rectify this.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Showing as from the 18th as sent to intermediary so might see it soon I hope!

In reply to FactorXXX:

fair enough I hadn't seen that and was going from the date on the ukc post I linked.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Anyone got their Rocks yet?

cheers

Gaz

In reply to Gazlynn:

Haven't got mine yet... personally or for the work store

In reply to Gazlynn:

They rung me today with a update this was only due to that i had rung them last night . This is what I was told they have started to post out to day and if yours was in that batch you would get a email , still no email looks like its going to be next year. I was also told they would update there website ..So it look s like its going to be early next year when we get them back.

In reply to ianj:

Merry Christmas Wild Country. Got mine back in post today.

In reply to UKC Gear:

My replacement nuts and free quickdraw arrived in the post today too Christmas come early

Thank you wild country.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Got mine today, brief description below, only sent four off.

Rock 8 10kn/10kn

Rock 7 12 kn ????? (This one has grey instead of black cover, does not say made in the u.k like the rest, not particularly worried but it is different from the rest)

Rock 6 10kn/10kn

Rock 4 10/8kn.

Free quickdraw was a Xenon.

A few minor nicks on the anodising, not perfect but acceptable.

In reply to FreshSlate:

That's very interesting - I'm sure everything above size 1 used to be rated at 12KN

In reply to UKC Gear:

Im jealous, nothing as yet

In reply to UKC Gear:

Got mine today, so yes they made it before Christmas but it was very fine!

In reply to fire_munki:

Sent mine off the day of the recall and still had nothing back, last email update was almost 2 months ago. Would of been nice to have received some more email updates rather than trawling through UKC to find out where my rocks are ...

In reply to CMcBain:



Me too. I even had an email saying they were on their way, back two months ago that was, shortly after I had another to say it was a mistake, then nothing since.
Come on Wild Country, the poor quality product is costing you a fortune already, don't lose our goodwill as well.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Received today -posted on 16/12. Thanks, I hope when everyone's had theirs back and the dust settles some good comes out of the experience. I bet everyone at WC is knackered with the massive workload. Twill certainly make for a good chapter in MA's autobiography. One final comment before sign-off is that as per an earlier post, I think it would be really helpful to video the QA process and explanation of 3 sigma testing on WC's website. Cheers. HNY.

In reply to Gerry:

Same here .sick of speaking to them on the phone telling me they on there way.

In reply to Gerry:

Got mine today and very nice they look too, complete with a new quick draw.

I note the replacement classic rocks no longer have their size "tag" in colour. Shame I used to find this helpful when searching for the right sized nut in a hurry. No major issue and I would still buy Wild Country.

In reply to UKC Gear:

whoop! Came home to a package (thinking it was something boring i ordered from amazon) and shazam I find my wire and brand new quick draw. Happy days! Good job wildcountry, im still a happy customer

In reply to UKC Gear:

I got mine back. Strangely 5,6 and 8 have black tags and 7 has a silver tag.

I also got a Xenon, despite asking to have my postage costs refunded. I guess I'll have to sell it on eBay.

Overall I'm not impressed how WC have dealt with this recall compared to how DMM dealt with the Dragon recalls.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Seriously? It will have cost them a fortune as it is without having to employ extra staff to work the night shifts. Or do you think everyone at WC should work 24 hours until you have your rocks?


Regarding DMM and the Dragon recall, I dare say WC have had far more customers (and products) to deal with in this instance!

In reply to UKC Gear:

No problem with times here I was just annoyed with the poor communication. The webpage where you logged recalls looked like a good thing but when I checked history all the entries were done on two dates! So I had no real idea what they were doing.

All WC need to learn is a few more regular updates and I'd have no complaints and it is only a minor thing.

In reply to Martin1978:

Especially seeing dragons had been out all of about 2 seconds before they were recalled...

In reply to mike kann:

Has anyone received theirs back since new years? Still waiting for mine and no update from wild country

still not got mine back, anybody in the same boat? 3 months to replace a faulty product!? sort it out wild country!

In reply to Danbow73:

Yep, still waiting for 2 sets of Rocks nearly 3 months down the line....

In reply to johnt:

To those who have received their rocks back:

1. Did you get an email saying they had been sent out?
2. Have you received both classic and anodised rocks?

In reply to Removed Userfergie:

I received mine back on the 27th Dec.

I sent mine back on Oct 11th.

I didn't receive an email

I only had anodised rocks to return.

Hope this helps.

cheers

Gaz

In reply to Gazlynn:

Got mine today, didn't send mine off for over 2 weeks after the recall, also received no email notification.

I also noted part of the address had been omitted (the road name). I noted previously (and informed WC) that their system seems to have a potential bug where company names are not printed, so I also added this to the road name / number field, it only got printed once so I suspect their system may still have an issue with this.

In reply to johnt:

I got an e-mail response from WC saying the next batch would be dispatched 9th Jan (almost 50% were replaced in the previous batch according to the e-mail) and that they expect to have all of returned uk nuts replaced by end of Jan.

Though given that their last post said most people would receive them before Christmas, and the 2 week gap between them posting that dispatch was imminent and actually dispatching I'm taking that with a huge pinch of salt!

Cheers,

Stuart

In reply to StuDoig:

Received mine just after Christmas. Classic nuts only. Returned them the day after the recall.

Well done WC for getting it sorted out, but more updates would have been greatly appreciated.

In reply to NottsRich:

Returned mine on the day after as well, but given other folks seem to have had their returned and didn't return them for days / weeks after the recall I guess it's just luck of the draw who gets them first.

Fully appreciate that it's not been an easy one for WC to resolve, but their communication on the issue has been woeful.

Cheers!

Stu

In reply to Removed Userfergie:

Got them back fine, no email, just a parcel through my door.

In reply to fire_munki:


Was it by royal mail or courier ?

In reply to Ciderslider:

2nd class royal mail I think

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Cheers wooks

In reply to Richie Patterson, Wild Country:

Hi WildCountry, just got my rocks back. Many thanks, you guys are life savers

In reply to UKC Gear:

Mine arrived yesterday.

In reply to UKC Gear:

got mine yesterday. Thanks!

In reply to alexjz:

Finally got mine back today. I had a look at the booklet that comes with them but can anyone confirm that when the rock is rated to 7kN/3kN, that the 3kN rating is for front facing placements (Ie if it was a larger rock, it would be the two hollowed out sides in contact with the rock) and the 7kN rating is for 'regular' side-on placements where the convex and concave area of the nut are contacting the rock?

Got my set back today, with two quick draws. bonus!

In reply to UKC Gear:

Anyone else still waiting? I never got a confirmation email for mine and haven't heard anything since new year. Dreadful weather has stopped play anyway so not a big deal.

In reply to gdnknf:

Yes, still waiting.