UKC

I'm sure the honest folks on the UKC forums will tell me if I am delusional on this one.

Sent a Petzl Spirit quickdraw back to Petzl as the stitching on the dogbone started to come undone - see first picture. The other 11 I bought at the same time are fine. It was just over a year old (3 year guarantee), and has probably seen 20 outings or so.

The Climbers Shop (who I bought it from) were very quick and helpful in arranging the return to Petzl. 

I hadn't heard back from Petzl about 3 weeks after sending so chased it up. Shortly after I received a report from after sales department at Petzl saying it was not eligible for replacement under the guarantee, showing apparent damage beyond normal wear and tear on the quickdraw (see second image with caption "Mark on the frame").

I quickly noticed that this was not a picture of a Petzl Spirit quickdraw. So replied to Petzl to let them know of their mistake, who replied with "You are correct in saying that the photo is not your quickdraw - it is an extract from the PPE document regarding inspecting connectors. I have attached this below for reference. It shows the kind of wear that you might find on connectors and the action that should be taken if your connector has similar damage (in this case, it should be retired).".

They included close up pictures of the carabiner that failed their check in this reply (they were not on the original report they sent me or included with the report). See attached the most damning one. 

I explained to the after sales team that this is the carabiner that is attached to bolts, and that it is not possible to use these for their intended purpose without scratching that bit of metal. Needless to say their minds are made up and are not for changing. They suggested that I retire the other 11 that I bought at the same time which have similar marks on. 

Had a similar stitching related issue with a much older DMM harness several years ago. Upon seeing a picture they immediately sent me a replacement (to Spain where I was on a trip at the time), and asked me to send the old one back at their expense and at my convenience. Perhaps that experience set my expectations unrealistically high.

Obviously Petzl have a level of responsibility when it comes to evaluating PPE, but surely no climber in their right mind would actually retire this quickdraw? Shouldn't have "cheaped out" on these £20 a piece quickdraws and should have got the DMM ones I guess. 

In reply to Will Collett:

I've had a not totally dissimilar experience with DMM though where something failing on a Dragon cam made it irretrievable with the standard equipment we had with us at the crag. They offered me a new one at less than it would cost me to buy from a shop but more than they would get for it with a shop buying them at trade price. 

I understand that companies just can't afford to replace everything that goes wrong on their gear, particularly after it's been used for some time. So this is just more that you don't always get a satisfactory (to you) outcome from all companies.

edit: oh yeah, next time just send the dog bone in for inspection!

In reply to Will Collett: Is the report from Petzl themselves or Lyon Equipment their UK agents ?

Petzl and aftersales service ?  just think Nomics 

In reply to Will Collett:

It is good you have showed contrition for not buying Alpha Sports. But moving on, I just do not understand firms like Peztl, the Draw is on 12 months old and looks shabby, they must only cost them £4, why not just send you a fresh one and do the decent thing and at the same time gain +£50 of free publicity, when you tell 10 mates how ace they are, rather than -£1000 of negative publicity when you tell people how rubbish they are.

Yes the modern consumer can be a PITA and yes some will try it on, but in the round most people are pretty reasonable.

If I was dealing with you, I would have googled you, and seen your logbook and worked out that possibly you are not a total numptie, other than obviously the strange decision of not buying Alpha Sports, and sent you a fresh one.

PS, its the Climbers Shop who you really have the gripe with

In reply to Will Collett:

The krab has obviously had some fairly significant hammer, but I would expect that from a krab on a quickdraw used for sport (less so on trad quickdraws as there is usually a lot less falling off).

The issue you have returned it to them over is the dog bone, not the krab. I can't see how anything resulting in that kind of wear on a krab could also result in that kind of damage to the stitching.

In reply to TobyA:

Sounds pretty decent of DMM to be honest. They've given you a discount on a replacement without getting the bad item back to prove your story. Can't expect them to send out free gear to anyone who emails them a picture of a stuck dragon with a broken trigger wire.

Irt the OP:

Pretty rubbish outcome. I'll bear this in mind for future buying decisions.
Did you hear that Petzl?

In reply to TobyA:

I think your example is quite different. If I've understood you correctly, you weren't able to return the gear to DMM so you were essentially asking them to give you a free/discounted cam on the basis of just trusting your account of what happened and the state of the cam. I'm sure it was an annoying situation for you and I don't blame you for trying, but looking at it from their perspective, I think it was gracious of them to offer you a discount at all.

In reply to Luke90:

The stem termination separated from the aluminium body that the axles are housed in. I believe what failed is what is called an "interference fit", i.e. its just squashed in very tightly, rather than attached by gluing, welding or something like that. A rather more worrying issue than say a broken trigger wire. Interestingly, this was one of the units that was recalled very soon after they had been released, so it was a replacement due to a fault in the original Dragon I had. This happened to a cam in a placement at the top of a crag (Stanage), so easy to get to (not having to abseil for example), on a Sunday afternoon. Myself and my partner who must have around 55 years of trad climbing experience between us, tried everything we could think of with two nut keys and whatever else we had in our bags to get it out but when you can't apply any pressure on the end of the stem, where the thumb-stop is (because the stem is loose in the head of the cam, so just pushes through into space beyond the cam) you can't retract the cams. We tried for an hour or so until it got dark at which point we had to give up. I had work the next day so couldn't get back to try again.

Because this was the top of the crag and easy access, I filmed and photographed what was happening and provided those to DMM so they could see the stem termination had come loose in the cam body. 

DMM actually asked Ben Bransby, as one of their athletes, to go up and see if he could retrieve it for them (Ben lives really close and DMM clearly wanted to understand how the stem had come loose) but unfortunately by the time Ben had chance to get up there and before I had chance to go back with a bigger tool kit, someone else had managed to remove it. I guess the crag swagger might have epoxied the stem back into place (because the stem termination is obviously bigger than the hole in the cam body, downwards pull on the stem was still fine), so the failure wouldn't have stopped the cam being safe in a fall, but I think if I had retrieved it I would have been worried about placing it again and the stem coming loose again, so not being able to get it out again. 

So, hardly the end of the world, and I know much worse stories of equipment failure that have led to serious accidents, but in this case the cam 'broke' because of something going wrong with it or a design problem (it hasn't happened to any of my other Dragons - so clearly isn't meant to happen). 

I think sometimes people have slightly naïve views about climbing equipment companies, they have to make a profit so don't always readily accept an issue as "their fault" if it is going to cost them. 

In reply to Godwin:

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. Would cost them almost nothing to replace it for the valid reason I returned it rather than fail it on a petty technicality. Instead they’ve paid someone to argue with me via email. 

In reply to Will Collett:

To provide balance, I broke a chin clip on my old Sirocco helmet by standing on it. I asked them for a new one via email and within 2 days they sent a new clip free. Perhaps it depends on who you get to deal with over at Petzl.

In reply to TobyA:

That's a pretty serious accusation Toby, I would say that most climbing companies are a lot more ethical in terms of issuing recalls than you are giving credit for based on my experience on tech committee. Recalls cost a fortune and they need to identify the issue so they know which products are affected.

If asked who I would trust to recall a dangerously faulty product between DMM/ Petzl/ BD/ Wild Country, or someone like Ford I would pick the climbing companies, they don't have an ethical failure called the Ford Pinto on their record.

In reply to Will Collett:

I'd have just trimmed off the loose threads and cracked on.

In reply to salad fingers:

In the absence of a guarantee we all would. But if the manufacturer has gone to the trouble of putting it in writing that they'll give you a new one if this happens, I'd take them up on it.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Consumer rights act says;

Section 23: Right to repair or replacement

This section details a consumer's right to insist on repair or replacement of faulty goods, the cost of which must be borne by the trader. This includes the trader bearing any costs involved in the removal of an installed item and reinstallation of a replacement

.

The climbers shop are the ones actually responsible for replacement or repair. Normally faulty items would be refunded (sometimes outright, sometimes after checking with the manufacturer), then the retailer would claim back the cost from the manufacturer.

I saw a how not to high line video where they tested a very similar looking draw, if I remember rightly it was strong enough, but obviously faulty.

​​

In reply to spenser:

I am sorry but my opinion is that in your specific position, you should not say that on a public forum, and really it is worrying that you think it. It suggests that you cannot take an objective unbiased view.
Ford/ DMM/ Heinz are just brands and only as good as the people there at the moment, and this can change over time, and IMHO should not be trusted, but rigorously assessed on current performance.
Possibly you consider it a throwaway comment posted late at night on a forum, but in the cold light of day, it could come back and haunt you.

In reply to spenser:

They're not my stories to tell, but I guess I've been around climbing for long enough to have heard some worrying things first hand from people, as well as more suspect anecdotes like a competitor telling tales on a problem with a competitors product. This is on top of stories that are well known more widely in the climbing community. Of course that will only be one half of the story - but I guess as an end user, it's the side most likely to affect me.

Having said that clearly climbing gear is on a whole is very well made and designed, as millions of us around the world are literally trusting our lives to it week in and week out, and actually testing that trust with falls. There don't seem to be as many failures these days as when I started in the 90s, either. I remember people snapping the blades on MT ice tools (by the "T" of stamped "Technology" IIRC). My mate snapped the head bolts on his Piranha actually on the Ben, another friend sheared through double bolts on a CAMP ice tools. People folded over crampon points or had the frame snap. I've snapped the frame of a crampon a long time ago. I remember in one of the first mags I ever bought a report on a German climbing competition where a climber fell and snapped the bolt end krab on the quickdraw! I think we all understand the mechanisms of failure better now but krabs are designed better and maybe made better now.

In reply to Will Collett: I have to confess if someone produced that degree of wear and on a krab and said 'only 20 routes nate, not much use at all', I'd be left pondering.  As PPE they have to be whiter than white w.r.t. supplying/returning stuff and that ain't going to go, no matter if 99% of us would think it's ok.  But yes,  I do think it's a lot of wear.

Toby's case is entirely different.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

I've had that exact same experience.

In reply to Godwin:

On the basis of current performance at those companies I would be very surprised if they didn't handle an issue meriting a recall in a professional manner on the basis of what I have seen during my time on tech Committee.

If any of them were to act in a manner not consistent with this view when dealing with an equipment failure and tech committee agreed that the issue needed to be addressed I would strongly encourage the company to initiate a request for inspection or a full blown recall.

I think I joined tech committee back in 2018, in that time there has only been one incident of a manufacturer really resisting issuing a recall (not one of the companies named, they had been manufacturing the product for years and did not have a batch numbering system so the financial consequences of them issuing a recall were significant, however resisting the recall was inexcusable in my eyes). If an issue crops up I will do what I can to help address it regardless of manufacturer, from what I have seen of DMM/ Petzl/ BD/ Wild Country etc I would expect this to be much more straightforward to achieve (just as some suppliers I interact with in my day job are easier to work with and more professional than others).

In reply to Godwin:

Nonsense. Firstly, he's a volunteer on a committee, not the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Secondly, he just expressed a mild and uncontroversial opinion that a handful of climbing brands seem to generally act pretty responsibly. If anything, his experience on the committee makes him better placed than most to say so and there was nothing in his comment to suggest that his opinion wouldn't be subject to change if the behaviour of the companies changed.

In reply to spenser:

I suspect they won't return the krabs because they're duty-bound not to return 'faulty' goods - same reason why manufacturers don't re-sling cams in Europe.

In reply to Will Collett:

That is the nub of it. This is PPE and it must be inspected to the highest standards, and if they OK'd it and is subsequently failed then they could be liable. The krab failed the assessment based on their own published standards, and they had little option to advise that it should be retired. It was due to normal wear and tear and therefore not covered by the guarantee.

Ideally climbers should inspect their kit to the same standards and be equally rigorous in retiring it, but in the real world most recreational climbers are willing to carry on using gear long after it would have been retired if used in a professional context.

If you had just returned the dogbone, which was the part you were concerned about, and if the failure of the stitching was due to a manufacturing defect rather than wear and tear, the outcome might have been different.  However as they had been sent the entire qd they had to look at the krabs as well.

I once had to return a helmet to Petzl as the plastic cradle was starting to disintegrate. This was clearly a manufacturing issue and they promptly replaced it.

In reply to Howard J:

I completely agree that they must adhere to their own standards regarding PPE. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a human element to their customer service and guarantee cover.

Yes in hindsight I should have returned the dogbone alone, however I suspect they would have rejected this as it would have been an incomplete product returned.

There’s no point having a guarantee on a quickdraw if any evidence of normal wear and tear (i.e. clipping the metal end to a bolt and falling/hanging on it a few times) renders the entire item ineligible for replacement, irrespective of whether that is the part that the owner is questioning to be faulty. 

I bought a product from them. I’m happy with how the entire thing is performing apart from the dogbone (and am certain I will get many years of safe use out of that carabiner). What I would expect at the very least is that they replace the faulty dogbone but make it clear to me that I should retire the carabiner based on its condition. 
 

Alas, my expectations have been lowered. And I’ll be buying any future gear elsewhere (unless, god forbid, I lose my grigri).

In reply to Will Collett:

There’s a link to the full inspection procedure for Petzl carabiners on the Petzl website here: https://m.petzl.com/INT/en/Sport/Carabiners-And-Quickdraws/technical-conten...

Wear greater than 1mm is considered ‘serious’ i.e. it should fail a PPE inspection. This is in line with the general guideline of allowing up to 10% wear when inspecting metal ppe items.

In reply to Will Collett:

If a stitch comes loose like that on a quickdraw, the other thing to do of course is melt the thread back with a lighter before it gets any worse and carry on. 

I've got the same dogbones on my sport draws. Not noticed it yet, but that's what I'd do if one or two stitches had snagged. I'm sure someone is going to say "you're gonna die!" but I've done that for decades and my main problem with slings and dogbones is telling myself I really should replace them when they get to a decade old but still look fine.

In reply to Will Collett:

All guarantees exclude normal wear and tear. Petzl seem to be saying that the damage to the krab went beyond a few scratches and had reached the stage where it failed their testing standards.  The loose threads on the dogbone could have been normal wear and tear rather than due to a manufacturing fault.  It is not certain that even without the damaged krab that this would have qualified for a warranty replacement.

What you seem to be suggesting is that Petzl should have replaced it anyway as a matter of goodwill.  Perhaps some other manufacturers would have done so, but by definition that is discretionary and Petzl were fully entitled to decide not to.  Perhaps if it had been new and after only had a couple of outings they might have taken a different view,  but it was a year old and had seen 20 outings, which is not an insignificant amount of use. 

Perhaps your DMM harness was more obviously entitled to a warranty replacement, just as my Petzl helmet was. You can't ever know in these situations until you ask the question, but with anything (not just climbing gear) the older it is and the more it has been used the more uncertain the outcome.

In reply to Will Collett:

Having determined that the carabiner is not safe to use, I don't think it's unreasonable that they don't feel able to return it to you.  Advising you to retire it is not enough because, as you have confirmed here, they would be completely correct in assuming that you would simply ignore their advice and carry on using it.

What does seem unreasonable though is refusing to at least return the other carabiner.

I think the minimum that I'd consider to be good customer service would be to replace the dogbone under warranty (if appropriate) and give you a reasonable price to replace the worn carabiner, or to return the remainder of the 'draw without it.

Edit to add:

Since your OP specifically asks us to "tell me if I am delusional on this one."

Petzl themselves, having carefully inspected this Petzl product say otherwise.  In so far as you seem completely certain that you know better than they do, yes you are delusional on this one.  Soz.

In the interest of full disclosure Petzl returned the quickdraw to me upon request. Today a new dogbone showed up in the post after a further cheeky email. 

I am grateful, but it’s a shame I had to be a bit of a pain in the arse to get this result.

In reply to Will Collett:

Personally, I would just have sent back the faulty webbing and not included the krabs.