Forum Index > Gear Talk > CCH Alien Failures (Beyond the 2006 Recall)
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Layback
Cascades Expatriate



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5712 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back East
Layback
Cascades Expatriate
PostSun Jul 04, 2010 8:50 pm 
I happened to cruise over to Gunks.com today to explore a forum that I haven't visited in a while and came across some disturbing information. There's a guy doing pull tests who claims that these cams are failing way below their strength rating. The failures aren't limited to the cams with the dimple that were detailed in this: http://www.aliencamsbycch.com/recall/index.html There are reported failures in pre and post recall models. Here's the Gunks.com thread (skip past the first pull test of an unreliable sample, which was a bootied piece of gear): http://gunks.com/ubbthreads7/ubbthreads.php/topics/53142/1 Here's a link to a test that was done on 24 cams sent to this guy by Rock & Snow (a very prominent gear store in New Paltz, NY, which is the home of the Gunks). I recommend looking at the XL Sheet and the PDF: http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2149960 I'm curious what others know of this. I'm likely going to send the 14 cams I have to CCH for free testing.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Spotly
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3723 | TRs | Pics
Location: Spokane Valley
Spotly
Member
PostSun Jul 04, 2010 10:43 pm 
I'm not sure I'd have much confidence in them to test your cams. They obviously have some quality assurance issues. Just my 2 cents.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Cascades Expatriate



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5712 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back East
Layback
Cascades Expatriate
PostSun Jul 04, 2010 11:31 pm 
Good point. Thanks for mentioning it. To play devil's advocate, how likely is it that the guy doing the testing on Gunks.com and rc.com is performing these tests at an industry standard level? Mostly this makes me lack confidence in my cams until I have evidence to trust in them again. The thing is, even if they fail at a level slightly lower than they advertise (assuming he is right), they still may stronger than their counterparts:
Cams
Cams
But like you said, there's a QC issue there and that doesn't make me feel very good. In a game that's 50+% mental, I don't like not feeling good.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Cascades Expatriate



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5712 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back East
Layback
Cascades Expatriate
PostMon Jul 05, 2010 12:03 pm 
I just spoke with Andrew at Rock & Snow in New Paltz, NY after an evening of freaking out over the times I was well above my gear... Here's the scoop on the tests that Aric performed at Rock & Snow vs CCH: - The surface used in the break tests was different from the surface used by Dave at CCH. Aric's tests favored hard-lobed cams (like BD). Dave's tests (at CCH), favored soft lobed cams (like CCH). UIAA testing allows for some variance in surface. Therefore the break strengths tested by Dave at CCH are accurate by industry standards though there aren't the 3 sigma standard that BD or WC uses. Essentially BD cams, WC cams, and anybody using 3 sigma testing tests a sample of cams produced in a batch. Because they use a large sample size they are able to say (with statistical significance) that their cams will fail well above the rated break strength. Dave at CCH tested a bunch of cams and rated them at the lowest break strength of any cam in the group. This is a pretty reliable measure, but not created in a way that creates statistical significance for the entire batch (a very important piece of the scientific method). More about the recall: - As you know, the recall identified cams with a dimple. The dimple was used to identify a vendor to whom Dave at CCH was outsourcing the brazing. Essentially, during the time period that brazing was outsourced, the vendor water-dried the brazing instead of air-drying the brazing. This created a weakness and was causing cams to fail at the brazing at around 1,000 lbs of force. Apparently, the recall has been extended to include cams without the dimple over a specific time period where outsourcing occurred. I can't seem to find information on those dates unfortunately. The recall on the CCH website just says a dimple with dates 1104 - 1205 (though a letter from Dave to Climbing Mag says that any cams during those dates should be tested, dimple or not). Andrew at R&S tells me that he sent his back for testing (to CCH) and they all came back with a clean bill of health. Pretty much everyone who sent their back found the same to be true. Unfortunately, Dave at CCH has passed away, CCH is for sale, and I'm not sure that CCH is still offering the testing on cams. Does anyone happen to know of a center in the PNW that can do a strength test without damaging one's cams? I'm still not entirely sure what to do with my Aliens. In my profession statistical significance is important so this creates some issues for me even though this may or may not be valid in real, practical terms. I like absolutes when it comes to these things I'm afraid...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostMon Jul 05, 2010 12:57 pm 
Layback wrote:
. . . the vendor water-dried the brazing instead of air-drying the brazing.
water-dried?? confused.gif Do you mean the vendor water cooled or, using the more common term, quenched the piece in water after brazing? If so, that's bizarre. I've been brazing bicycle frames, off and on, for 33 years, and I've always considered quenching a big no no.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Cascades Expatriate



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5712 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back East
Layback
Cascades Expatriate
PostMon Jul 05, 2010 1:09 pm 
Yes - sorry. Water-cooled.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
BirdDog
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 1067 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
BirdDog
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2010 7:22 am 
Well I haven't conducted scientific testing on Aliens, however I did take about a 12'-15' fall on a red Alien a couple of weeks ago in Icicle and I'm not dead. Placed the Alien in the bottom of the crack and was about six to eight feet above it when I rocketed out. I'm glad it was an Alien and not a C3, I don't think the rigid stem (rigid when side pulling) on the C3 would have held as well as the Alien did. Not disputing the article, which was interesting btw. Thanks for positing it Layback.

"There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country." Teddy Roosevelt August 6, 1912
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Cascades Expatriate



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5712 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back East
Layback
Cascades Expatriate
PostThu Jul 08, 2010 11:58 am 
Glad to hear you're okay bud. How much rope was out in the system? If you were relatively low on the pitch and 8 feet above your gear you could have generated about 8 kN of force. More rope in the system would decrease the force... Anyway, the info bums me out big time. This may be old news to some as there are several threads about it on CC.com. Aliens are THE cam of choice for the Gunks and as a former Gunkie 2/3 of my rack is Aliens. The problem seems to be this: when one reaches into a bucket of cams labeled "10 kN cams", every time one pulls out a BD cam, a WC Cam, Metolius, etc one gets at least a 10 kN cam. When one pulls out a CCH Alien one could get a 6 kN cam or a 8 kN cam or a 14 kN cam. This data suggests that what you have on your rack is anyone's guess.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostThu Jul 08, 2010 12:39 pm 
If CCH can competently identify those cams that were assembled by the idiot vendor who quenched confused.gif shakehead.gif them after brazing, then I see no reason to suspect CCH cams that were not quenched. Who decides what sampling numbers confer what level of statistical validity? Brazing is as much art as science. It aint robotic TIG welding nor a mechanical connection. I've been silver brazing and bronze brazing for decades, and I've seen failure test results and real time failures (which are very rare for an experienced craftsman). The failure test results are all over the map, even for items made in the same batch by wholly competent brazers. In addition to being as much art as science, brazing strength varies widely depending on enviromnent (dust, debris, cleaniness, temperature, draftiness, a sneeze or cough by the brazer, variations in filler material and/or base material, flux bubbles, etc., etc.). These factors affect both penetration and bond (i.e., alloying with the base material). Thus the failure thresholds vary broadly from piece to piece. If the failure is occuring at the braze joint, what difference does it make whether the testing is biased for or against soft or hard lobbed cams. confused.gif FWIW, I too have taken a leader fall on a CCH cam. It was a high impact fall, est. fall factor of 1 with 20 feet of rope paid out and I'm a big dude. It was probably a pre-2006 Alien, BTW.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Cascades Expatriate



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5712 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back East
Layback
Cascades Expatriate
PostThu Jul 08, 2010 4:23 pm 
BigSteve wrote:
If CCH can competently identify those cams that were assembled by the idiot vendor who quenched confused.gif shakehead.gif them after brazing, then I see no reason to suspect CCH cams that were not quenched.
Unfortunately, it's happening to cams that weren't outsourced to that vendor. Unless I'm mistaken, the recall was specific to cams brazed by that vendor; the dimple was the identification mark for that vendor. Here's a list of known failures outside of the recall (assumedly not the product of the outsourced vendor): http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1648674#1648674 Also, here is a cross-section photo of an Alien braze failure from outside of the recall (middle of the pic is the cam that failed at the braze):
BigSteve wrote:
Who decides what sampling numbers confer what level of statistical validity? Brazing is as much art as science. It aint robotic TIG welding nor a mechanical connection. I've been silver brazing and bronze brazing for decades, and I've seen failure test results and real time failures (which are very rare for an experienced craftsman). The failure test results are all over the map, even for items made in the same batch by wholly competent brazers.
I don't think that the statistical significance that one achieves in 3 sigma testing of cams is based solely on the brazing. I have knowledge of statistical significance from my line of work, but I do not understand the methodology employed by BD, WC and DMM (all of whom can say with statistical significance that their cams will fail at a level stronger than their break strength). But if one were to look closely at the methodology I'm sure it would be fairly clear. From BD's website (similar wording on WC and DMM): To rate our climbing gear with a meticulous degree of accuracy, Black Diamond uses a rigorous, best-in-the-industry rating standard called Three Sigma. By batch testing our climbing equipment following 3 Sigma methodologies, we can ensure that there is a 99.87% probability that the strength of any item taken from the same batch will be above the rating. And though the rigorous 3 Sigma testing method results in a rated strength that is three standard deviations lower than the average value found during testing, we feel climbing hardware requires testing with an absolutely consistent and conservative approach to ensure the high levels of quality you have come to expect from Black Diamond.
BigSteve wrote:
If the failure is occuring at the braze joint, what difference does it make whether the testing is biased for or against soft or hard lobbed cams. confused.gif
After spending a lot of time on rc.com the last few days trying to better understand why folks have their panties in such a bunch and why all this matters I uncovered a few things. The mode of failure has been more than just brazing. Apparently there are cam lobe axle hole drilling issues, stem strength issues, swage issue, and brazing issues. All of which lead to break strength significantly lowered than advertised. There are four things that speak volumes to me: 1) This test clearly shows that CCH cams do not live up to advertised break strength: http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2149960 Pay special attention to the downloadable XL sheet that tested 24 cams, most of which were right off the shelf. 2) Cams breaking outside of the recall period: http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1648674#1648674 3) Lack of testing with statistical significance on the part of CCH and obvious QC issues, which were met with some fairly disturbing acknowledgment on the part of CCH: http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1279332;#1279332 4) Somewhere on CC.com I saw that Billcoe sent his in for testing and all but one came back same as before. He received a new green alien in place of the old one with no explanation of what happened, the methodology employed, or even an apology. Pretty weird IMHO.
BigSteve wrote:
FWIW, I too have taken a leader fall on a CCH cam. It was a high impact fall, est. fall factor of 1 with 20 feet of rope paid out and I'm a big dude. It was probably a pre-2006 Alien, BTW.
The problem I'm having with all of this is the fact that we don't know which ones are okay and which ones aren't. The list of failures outside of the recall combined with the data on break strengths done by adatesman creates enough skepticism in my mind that I can't say I have total faith in my Aliens to live up to their advertised standards, which is contrasted by the evidence produced by BD, WC and DMM that we can rely on them. Unfortunately, just a little bit of negative evidence is enough for me to invest $500 in new cams. I don't want to spend my time making sound decisions with gear placements and route-finding only to be met with cam failure because of poor QC. 10/12 of my Aliens have production dates between 1998 and 2001. I wish we had more data on those so I could feel better about all of this. I used to love, and I mean LOVE Alien cams. FWIW, I've been learning about all of this primarily via Gunks.com. Those folks have had a fairly good, scientific debate that's fairly free of spray. Look through their stuff in it's entirety (4 pages) and you should be able to grasp the significance of this and make your own decision on Aliens. Some are conducting their own pull tests, some are retiring them, and some are just pressing on with the info they have and downgrading the strength in their minds a bit. http://gunks.com/ubbthreads7/ubbthreads.php/topics/53142/1

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
BirdDog
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 1067 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
BirdDog
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2010 4:53 pm 
Layback wrote:
Glad to hear you're okay bud. How much rope was out in the system? If you were relatively low on the pitch and 8 feet above your gear you could have generated about 8 kN of force. More rope in the system would decrease the force...
I'm guessing I had about 60' of rope out. It was a very soft catch, good belayer. I got right back on and finished the pitch without peeling off again. Scary after reading your post though.

"There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country." Teddy Roosevelt August 6, 1912
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostThu Jul 08, 2010 4:54 pm 
Layback wrote:
Also, here is a cross-section photo of an Alien braze failure from outside of the recall (middle of the pic is the cam that failed at the braze):
The middle pic is confusing. It appears that the failure occured on the stainless steel cable -- near the braze joint, but not at the braze. Such a cable failure could, of course, have resulted from sudden quenching after brazing, which can significantly embrittle and weaken steel. OTOH, the middle pic might also be evidence of very poor penetration of the braze filler material, although it's possible that all the filler was ground down and the pic is showing a cross section of the cable. But if that were so, then one would expect to see penetration on the flank of the cable, as in the bottom pic. Whether it's just the first or both, that's a manifestly defective brazing job. Awful. The top and bottom pics show good penetration.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Cascades Expatriate



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5712 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back East
Layback
Cascades Expatriate
PostThu Jul 08, 2010 5:22 pm 
BigSteve wrote:
The middle pic is confusing. It appears that the failure occured on the stainless steel cable -- near the braze joint, but not at the braze
My bad - I think it has been called a cable failure... Look at this pre-failure pic. Folks are claiming that broken strands in the metal are not of significance because the braze job was so poor anyway. Could it have failed at the braze if it didn't fail at the cable? Who's to say? It failed at the cable right? I originally discounted this test because the piece was bootied and then I saw the cross section. Regardless, do you want to climb on cams that could be brazed like that?
Any thoughts? More pics of the cam post-failure. Is this a brazing issue or did the cable break?
Pics on page 2 of this thread: http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2143110;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Sorry that I don't totally have the facts right on this one, I've been pouring over this stuff for a couple days trying to make myself feel good about my Aliens and I can't. It all kind of blends together...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostFri Jul 09, 2010 8:30 am 
Again, that cable failure -- even though it's not at the braze joint -- could very well have resulted from quenching after brazing. Stupid.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Gear Talk > CCH Alien Failures (Beyond the 2006 Recall)
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum