This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Im after a yellow, gold and red if anyone either has some for sale (good condition only) or knows a UK based shop to buy them from. I heard that the UK distributor went bust a few years ago but don't know if anyone else is importing them or where I can buy them from. Done a web search but cant find anything.
Cheers :-P
Cheers :-P
In reply to matt pigden:
seems to be a fair bit of doubt floating about still regarding aliens, search the forums for more info. But further independent tests have shown more fairly worrying results for the aliens.
seems to be a fair bit of doubt floating about still regarding aliens, search the forums for more info. But further independent tests have shown more fairly worrying results for the aliens.
In reply to CurlyStevo: Really??? I've had a few falls onto mine and they seems ok, what's the deal??
In reply to matt pigden: There is a slave market held weekly on Alpha Centurai B.
In reply to Al Evans:
Or, District 9.
> (In reply to matt pigden) There is a slave market held weekly on Alpha Centurai B.
Or, District 9.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Thanks for that! I'll never doubt the safety of my aliens ever again!
Read some of the comments and you'll see the sling is more likely to break than the cam, maybe we should begin 'investigating' dyneema? ...the CCH witch-hunt continues!
> (In reply to matt pigden)
> http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2149960;sb=post_l...
> http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2149960;sb=post_l...
Thanks for that! I'll never doubt the safety of my aliens ever again!
Read some of the comments and you'll see the sling is more likely to break than the cam, maybe we should begin 'investigating' dyneema? ...the CCH witch-hunt continues!
In reply to Silum: err, did we read the same report? I've gone over various tests/reports including this one several times in the last few months, and as far as i'm concerned the sooner CCH go out of business the better.
In reply to Silum:
Actually that's just one thread that's been linked to from this site. I suggest you do your own research using the search facility, but personally I don't trust CCH gear highly enough to want to buy their cams. If I already owned some I'm not sure I'd sell them or not. But I don't have strong feelings either way about the cams, it's up to people who own them if they want to use them and people who buy them if they want to part with their hard earned folding.
Actually that's just one thread that's been linked to from this site. I suggest you do your own research using the search facility, but personally I don't trust CCH gear highly enough to want to buy their cams. If I already owned some I'm not sure I'd sell them or not. But I don't have strong feelings either way about the cams, it's up to people who own them if they want to use them and people who buy them if they want to part with their hard earned folding.
In reply to matt pigden:
Was in hitch n hike's larger store in hope valley today and noticed they had some aliens reduced a bit.
http://www.hitchnhike.co.uk/
Was in hitch n hike's larger store in hope valley today and noticed they had some aliens reduced a bit.
http://www.hitchnhike.co.uk/
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I've already done the research on this over the years. When the big recall happened this was a hot topic, if you're not a part of that recall then I honestly see nothing to worry about.
Look at the actual results of the above test. A test which includes both used and older model cams as well as testing them direct to the stem. Most all had similar modes of failure, close to their rated strengths. If i'm pushing 15kN on my next fall, I'll be sure to visit you from my hospital bed.
I will agree that their rated strengths are overly ambitious which doesn't inspire confidence in their quality control. But overly ambitions doesn't mean unsafe in my book, each cam still gave acceptable readings. They still go through CE testing and pass, unvalidated results spurred on by people getting caught up in the recall do little to change my opinion. I trust my aliens and this (lets be honest) tired discussion just doesn't seem to quit. If you don't trust them or want to see CCH burn, well good luck to ya!
I've already done the research on this over the years. When the big recall happened this was a hot topic, if you're not a part of that recall then I honestly see nothing to worry about.
Look at the actual results of the above test. A test which includes both used and older model cams as well as testing them direct to the stem. Most all had similar modes of failure, close to their rated strengths. If i'm pushing 15kN on my next fall, I'll be sure to visit you from my hospital bed.
I will agree that their rated strengths are overly ambitious which doesn't inspire confidence in their quality control. But overly ambitions doesn't mean unsafe in my book, each cam still gave acceptable readings. They still go through CE testing and pass, unvalidated results spurred on by people getting caught up in the recall do little to change my opinion. I trust my aliens and this (lets be honest) tired discussion just doesn't seem to quit. If you don't trust them or want to see CCH burn, well good luck to ya!
In reply to Silum: I like this comment from the guy who tested them:
EDIT- Oh, and at this point I think I'm just about done trying to convince people. I've pretty much done nothing but this for the past couple weeks and if the issues outlined in this aren't enough to give someone pause I don't think there's anything that could convince them there may be problems. And don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Aliens too... Its just that there's no way to tell the good from the bad and personally I'd rather not accept that level of uncertainty in my gear.
EDIT- Oh, and at this point I think I'm just about done trying to convince people. I've pretty much done nothing but this for the past couple weeks and if the issues outlined in this aren't enough to give someone pause I don't think there's anything that could convince them there may be problems. And don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Aliens too... Its just that there's no way to tell the good from the bad and personally I'd rather not accept that level of uncertainty in my gear.
In reply to matt pigden:
I've a yellow one I could part with. PM me so I get your email and I'll send over some pics. its had no shock loading, but has been weighted. obviously I'm not going to warantee it.
I think i paid £50 in Outside for it - £30 posted?
I've a yellow one I could part with. PM me so I get your email and I'll send over some pics. its had no shock loading, but has been weighted. obviously I'm not going to warantee it.
I think i paid £50 in Outside for it - £30 posted?
In reply to jonny2vests: no it's not
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=370442
Out of 23 alien tested 7 hit there rated strength and a few where significantly less.
That's appalling.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=370442
Out of 23 alien tested 7 hit there rated strength and a few where significantly less.
That's appalling.
In reply to kendogcatchy: great, look forward to your email.
In reply to matt pigden: Ok, read a lot of the Alien reports ect.. and can see that there is huge debate about their consistency of production and breaking strain. Does anyone know what the lowest recoded breaking strain has been; how bad are they when they are bad?
In reply to matt pigden:
Well read the report provided above. The worst failed at 54% of its rated strength. If you like to read things like that and just run wild with your imagination as seemingly the majority of people here do, then fine.
The reason for 'failure' was that it slipped from the testing device due to 'flat spots' the tester says. This is despite perfectly reasonable hardness tests. Ohh, on a used cam as well. The stem withstood well beyond its rating. Which was the reason for the recall in the first place.
> Does anyone know what the lowest recoded breaking strain has been; how bad are they when they are bad?
Well read the report provided above. The worst failed at 54% of its rated strength. If you like to read things like that and just run wild with your imagination as seemingly the majority of people here do, then fine.
The reason for 'failure' was that it slipped from the testing device due to 'flat spots' the tester says. This is despite perfectly reasonable hardness tests. Ohh, on a used cam as well. The stem withstood well beyond its rating. Which was the reason for the recall in the first place.
In reply to Silum: So none have failed at very low loads then? As long as the lowest is 50% plus then thats still plenty as far as i can tell. I've had some pretty descent falls on mine and so far they have been fine so I guess i'll just have to try and put it to the back of my mind.
In reply to matt pigden:
Outer space!
Outer space!
In reply to matt pigden:
No. Despite what some would think, cams are a very simple design with very simple mechanics and well understood material properties.
Even those crazy cheap Russian pieces of crap would hold you (copied design+ similar materials). Of course we are accepting acceptable degrees of risk in this discussion, and in this case the reputation of a company. The ONLY reason this is being questioned is because of the problems CCH suffered in the past, which were a specific batch linked to the brazing of the wire stems. This lead to a ferocious uproar of opinion from people who read various 'reports' such as these.
For a lot of people this is all egyptian hieroglyphic talk, but material properties are finite and measureable, brazing techniques and results are well understood, wire stengths are well understood and measurable, and camming angles versus force are extremely well balanced... the fact that CCH has come under scrutiny lies ENTIRELY because of a bad 'batch' that was duely recalled.
I dare say if you test a batch of 3sigma* C4's ranging from 'the early 90's to new' you would receive VERY similar results. To actually include unknown history used items in a test like this speaks volumes to the quality of its results.
*blah
> (In reply to Silum) So none have failed at very low loads then? As long as the lowest is 50% plus then thats still plenty as far as i can tell.
No. Despite what some would think, cams are a very simple design with very simple mechanics and well understood material properties.
Even those crazy cheap Russian pieces of crap would hold you (copied design+ similar materials). Of course we are accepting acceptable degrees of risk in this discussion, and in this case the reputation of a company. The ONLY reason this is being questioned is because of the problems CCH suffered in the past, which were a specific batch linked to the brazing of the wire stems. This lead to a ferocious uproar of opinion from people who read various 'reports' such as these.
For a lot of people this is all egyptian hieroglyphic talk, but material properties are finite and measureable, brazing techniques and results are well understood, wire stengths are well understood and measurable, and camming angles versus force are extremely well balanced... the fact that CCH has come under scrutiny lies ENTIRELY because of a bad 'batch' that was duely recalled.
I dare say if you test a batch of 3sigma* C4's ranging from 'the early 90's to new' you would receive VERY similar results. To actually include unknown history used items in a test like this speaks volumes to the quality of its results.
*blah
In reply to Cornelius:
Yeah, I've seen that. So their advertised strength is a bit off, but they're still well within any likely forces that would be generated. My experience is that not only will they go in places other gear wont, they stand a better chance of not ripping where other cams would.
Yeah, I've seen that. So their advertised strength is a bit off, but they're still well within any likely forces that would be generated. My experience is that not only will they go in places other gear wont, they stand a better chance of not ripping where other cams would.
In reply to Silum:
Apart from the cams failing well under the rated strength. The other issues are inconsistency of manufacture.
The lobes tested were all different hardness and therefore not the 6061T6 as advertised this often varied considerably even amongst lobes of the same cam. This is one suspicion to way so many axels and lobes were deformed due to uneven pressures exerted by the cam.
The caming angles also varied considerably even on each lobe which is another possible cause of the axel deformation.
Head failure at levels below testing that CCH claims to have pre tested the brand new cams at already!
Reading the article there were a few other inconsistencies that would worry me also
Apart from the cams failing well under the rated strength. The other issues are inconsistency of manufacture.
The lobes tested were all different hardness and therefore not the 6061T6 as advertised this often varied considerably even amongst lobes of the same cam. This is one suspicion to way so many axels and lobes were deformed due to uneven pressures exerted by the cam.
The caming angles also varied considerably even on each lobe which is another possible cause of the axel deformation.
Head failure at levels below testing that CCH claims to have pre tested the brand new cams at already!
Reading the article there were a few other inconsistencies that would worry me also
In reply to Silum:
Actually if you read the report, used Camalot and Metolius cams were tested as control samples which both failed well above rated strength.
The second most disturbing thing IMHO was the off-centre drilling on the lobes resulting in a wildly variable cam angle. There is software which lets you analyse the lobes of your cams from digital images (linked in the report) but more often than not Aliens seemed to be misdrilled.
The most disturbing thing of all is CCH's refusal to acknowledge there is a problem and the way they have handled the whole problem. From initial accusations that reports of failed aliens (which were later recalled) must have been a hoax or a smear, to complete silence.
Clearly you have already made up your mind and I'm not trying to change it, but the whole thing isn't the storm in a teacup you're making it out to be.
> I dare say if you test a batch of 3sigma* C4's ranging from 'the early 90's to new' you would receive VERY similar results. To actually include unknown history used items in a test like this speaks volumes to the quality of its results.
Actually if you read the report, used Camalot and Metolius cams were tested as control samples which both failed well above rated strength.
The second most disturbing thing IMHO was the off-centre drilling on the lobes resulting in a wildly variable cam angle. There is software which lets you analyse the lobes of your cams from digital images (linked in the report) but more often than not Aliens seemed to be misdrilled.
The most disturbing thing of all is CCH's refusal to acknowledge there is a problem and the way they have handled the whole problem. From initial accusations that reports of failed aliens (which were later recalled) must have been a hoax or a smear, to complete silence.
Clearly you have already made up your mind and I'm not trying to change it, but the whole thing isn't the storm in a teacup you're making it out to be.
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
Have there been any cases of Aliens actually failing in a climbing scenario?
Personally I buy Aliens because they go in where no other cam will and stay in!
Have there been any cases of Aliens actually failing in a climbing scenario?
Personally I buy Aliens because they go in where no other cam will and stay in!
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
Ooo good, someone who did actually read the report before coming to conclusions on their own. I will agree that clearly minds are made up, though I'm not quite as arrogant as you may think I am. I have a blue alien and will continue to trust it but I probably wont buy anymore, simply because their are now more small (unequivocally safe) cams on the market and for larger sizes I prefer BD anyway...
Aliens being 'misdrilled' is indeed the reason for all these failures. But its a very loose definition of the word failure since the cams didn't actually fail in most the cases, it was generally the smaller sized cams that this 'misdrilling' caused the steel rig to cause the lobes to deform quicker than they should and exceed the critical angle. Most slipped out of the rig due to the lobes deforming. You can either view this as a hardness problem or a rigging problem. The larger cams didn't suffer this as much, just as the other brands tested were larger. So for the interesting bit... There is plenty of discussion in that thread about real world conditions where cams are placed in sandstone and granite and not in steel, where this critical angle of 30 odd degrees won't be reached solely due to lobe flat spots. Also, look at all the drop testing done out there with Aliens and others, a year or so back when I cared about all this there was plenty of data out there.
...Hence why they continually pass CE and UIAA standards and are deemed perfectly safe. Again, clearly no minds are going to be drastically changed here but my choice is between unvalidated results off the internet and a mountaineering federation.
> (In reply to Silum)
>
> [...]
>
> Actually if you read the report, used Camalot and Metolius cams were tested as control samples which both failed well above rated strength.
>
> The second most disturbing thing IMHO was the off-centre drilling on the lobes resulting in a wildly variable cam angle. There is software which lets you analyse the lobes of your cams from digital images (linked in the report) but more often than not Aliens seemed to be misdrilled.
>
> [...]
>
> Actually if you read the report, used Camalot and Metolius cams were tested as control samples which both failed well above rated strength.
>
> The second most disturbing thing IMHO was the off-centre drilling on the lobes resulting in a wildly variable cam angle. There is software which lets you analyse the lobes of your cams from digital images (linked in the report) but more often than not Aliens seemed to be misdrilled.
Ooo good, someone who did actually read the report before coming to conclusions on their own. I will agree that clearly minds are made up, though I'm not quite as arrogant as you may think I am. I have a blue alien and will continue to trust it but I probably wont buy anymore, simply because their are now more small (unequivocally safe) cams on the market and for larger sizes I prefer BD anyway...
Aliens being 'misdrilled' is indeed the reason for all these failures. But its a very loose definition of the word failure since the cams didn't actually fail in most the cases, it was generally the smaller sized cams that this 'misdrilling' caused the steel rig to cause the lobes to deform quicker than they should and exceed the critical angle. Most slipped out of the rig due to the lobes deforming. You can either view this as a hardness problem or a rigging problem. The larger cams didn't suffer this as much, just as the other brands tested were larger. So for the interesting bit... There is plenty of discussion in that thread about real world conditions where cams are placed in sandstone and granite and not in steel, where this critical angle of 30 odd degrees won't be reached solely due to lobe flat spots. Also, look at all the drop testing done out there with Aliens and others, a year or so back when I cared about all this there was plenty of data out there.
...Hence why they continually pass CE and UIAA standards and are deemed perfectly safe. Again, clearly no minds are going to be drastically changed here but my choice is between unvalidated results off the internet and a mountaineering federation.
In reply to Silum:
You didn't see the lengthy thread on these a few months back did you?
> (In reply to plexiglass_nick)
> [...]
>
>
> Ooo good, someone who did actually read the report before coming to conclusions on their own.
> [...]
>
>
> Ooo good, someone who did actually read the report before coming to conclusions on their own.
You didn't see the lengthy thread on these a few months back did you?
In reply to trouserburp:
Yes, I believe so, post recall.
Sorry, don't have time to find anything definitive documented on this now but I do vividly remember reading reports at the time about a couple of accidents caused by non-recalled aliens failing under load.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cch+alien+failure
I would suggest sifting through a few of the American threads and see what you turn up.
> Have there been any cases of Aliens actually failing in a climbing scenario?
Yes, I believe so, post recall.
Sorry, don't have time to find anything definitive documented on this now but I do vividly remember reading reports at the time about a couple of accidents caused by non-recalled aliens failing under load.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cch+alien+failure
I would suggest sifting through a few of the American threads and see what you turn up.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...