redacted

sorry, really great info pulled

Russ, ... edited & Thanks, man.

When talking about solder - this is not the soft types we see on electronic components & plumbing connections, correct?

Is a silver solder as indicated? Wiki has a cool write-up about the solder types. Mainly stating that silver provides strength. Though, in this case presented, what does it matter? Just interesting to read about, nonetheless.

Important to note, this cam did not have the dimple. Upon reading the revised definition of the recall late last year, I had a yellow within the date range & no dimple. I had taken it out of my rack, though I have not had it tested.

Russ, can you post a picture of the way the head was attached for the pull test?

--- Invalid image id: 105961767 ---

sketchy..thanks for posting your findings Russ.

Russ Walling wrote:No idea on the solder thing... out of my area.... No dimple on this cam, but is within the recall date range. GET YOUR CAMS TESTED! 900lbs ain't very much in our sandbox.

Remove a small part of the sloder with a knife. Stick it to a peice of tape. Send it to me. I will tell you what it is. Do the same with some of your "powdery material."

Russ -- thanks for posting the test results here and on Supertopo!
To answer your question on Supertopo, I think the formal recall only included those that were dimpled, but when I talked with Dave last year, he recommended I definitely send in anything in that date range. I mean, what is the likelihood they'd have a contract welder that would only braze heads for ORANGE aliens... they appear to all be the same.

So, on this whole topic -- what else could be said. In the past couple weeks one alien appears to be an incomplete brazing. One appears to be fully brazed, but (just guessing), either it was cooled incorrectly or the surface wasn't prepared, or the filler material was incorrect. And yet another seems as if the head is brazed in place, but that the cable fractured as a whole.

Yes they all appear to be brazing or joint failures. Yes, they're all completely different, and I would suspect all could have different root causes.

Just my opinion, but this seems REALLY bad from a statistical perspective -- three apparently DIFFERENT issues rearing their ugly head within just a few weeks. I have a feeling we'll be seeing more soon, as more homegrown tests appear.

Guess I'll just wait and see what formulates; in the mean time, supplement my rack with TCUs or C3's in the couple small sizes I'm missing with aliens on the shelf from free climbing. That being said, I did bounce test them all and am taking them to Zion for some C1 aid this weekend.

What happens when you send your cam to CCH, they pull test it and it fails, do they replace it?

Avery, this is the way I see it:

we have:

• 1 alien failed which was already under the revised recall notice (Russ' test),
• 1 inconclusive which hasn't been verified (the one that appears to have a cable break??), and
• 1 inconclusive as to whether or not it was a cam under recall (the purple at Reservoir Wall @ IC), another case where the user won't come forward but will post partial pictures showing a failed braze.

The second one I mention is the one that scares me, but since the user has not sent the cam in, I feel it's a case were the cam cable was subjected to something else prior to the short fall & not a brazing issue. The reason this one scares me is that it could indicate the manner of tensile testing is inadequate.

CCH made it clear in their revised recall notice to look for the dates: "The window of the recall was 11-04 to 12-05". Though, on their website this information is not found & they are still saying to look for the dimple, I don't understand that, but the overall revised notice is still given in these public forums, back in August, 2006.

Climbers just posting pictures on the internet before all due process testing & analysis is completed is part of the problem, also. If the cams fail, they need to be sent in to a lab.

Mark Nelson wrote:CCH made it clear in their revised recall notice to look for the dates: "The window of the recall was 11-04 to 12-05".

Where can I find this recall notice? It's not a recall without the notice. Did you get an e-mail?

I see FIVE instances on their site indicating it must have the dimple to be affected by the recall. IMO, the recall affects only those units.

#############################

ONE: From the popup on the logon page:

ATTENTION: A Recall has Been Issued for Specific Recently Issued Alien Cams

Click Here for the Testing Report from Northwest Laboratories - 5-5-06 Click Here for the Cam Recall Press Release - 4-18-06 (PDF)
Click here to download Adobe's free PDF reader.

January 12, 2006
Colorado Custom Hardware (CCH) has recently completed an investigation and extensive testing of our product to identify and isolate safety issues concerning the brazing on CCH Alien cams. The safety of our customers is our number one priority and therefore we are issuing a recall for any cam bearing the marking described below.

The units with this issue are marked with a small center punch dimple (picture) at the base of the round ball where the axle goes through the cable eye. Although few failures have been reported, CCH recommends immediately discontinuing the use of any Alien cams with this mark. We are issuing a full recall of these cams. Please return them to CCH for a free replacement. You can mail your cams to:

Colorado Custom Hardware Inc.
ATTN: Brazing Recall
115 East Lyon Street
Laramie, WY 82072

CCH has always worked to assure the absolute highest quality of every cam we produce, and we are currently working on ways to further enhance our already stringent standards of quality control. Again, I would like to reiterate that ensuring the quality and safety of all CCH products is our highest priority.

Sincerely,
David Waggoner
President of Colorado Custom Hardware

#############################

TWO: From the CCH Website, when you click 'Recall Notice'
aliencamsbycch.com/recall/i…

January 12, 2006
...The safety of our customers is our number one priority and therefore we are issuing a recall for any cam bearing the marking described below.

The units with this issue are marked with a small center punch dimple (picture) at the base of the round ball where the axle goes through the cable eye. Although few failures have been reported, CCH recommends immediately discontinuing the use of any Alien cams with this mark. We are issuing a full recall of these cams. Please return them to CCH for a free replacement. You can mail your cams to...

#############################

THREE AND FOUR: From the CCH Website
aliencamsbycch.com/recall/f…

1) Which CCH cams are affected by the recall?

You can identify the defective cams by looking for a small center punch dimple at the base of the round ball (where the axle goes through the cable eye). If your cam has this punch dimple, it should be returned to CCH for a replacement or repair. Mail your defective cams to: Colorado Custom Hardware Inc. ATTN: Brazing Recall 115 East Lyon Street Laramie, WY 82072

6) Have there been any reported or tested stem brazing failures of cams without the "center punch dimple?"

No, cams without the center punch dimple have not been found to have brazing issues and are not included in this recall.

#############################

FIVE: From the CCH Website, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission notice:
aliencamsbycch.com/recall/C…

Name of product: Camming Anchor (used in climbing)
Units: About 4,100
Manufacturer: Colorado Custom Hardware (CCH) Inc., of Laramie, Wyo.
Hazard: The cables that support climbers using these devices can fail, causing climbers to fall.
Incidents/Injuries: CCH Inc. has received one report of an anchor cable failing a climber during use.
Description: These camming anchors or “Alien Cams” are devices used as both a precautionary measure to stop a climber in the event of falls, or it is used to actually support the climber. Climbers insert the device into cracks or crevasses in rock and it grips the sides of the crack. The recalled units are marked with a small center punch dimple at the base of the round ball where the axle goes through the cable eye. They have production dates, from
November 2004 (written as 1104) through December 2005 (written as 1205), which can be found on the bottom of the handle puller.

#############################

Naw, Mark -- this is just bad news, whether there is a recall or not. Statistically, it appears this is a bad, bad deal. Companies go under because their QC is insufficient to allow such a broad-ranging recall, not catching mistakes in a short period of time.

Why, BTW, don't climbing manufacturers allow you to optionally register equipment with them for recall notices? Not really a novel idea... seems logical to me.

Certainly a concern, which we discussed about last fall.

I guess the only way a climber would know is that the 4100 units were later discussed to entail the production period, November 2004 through December 2005, in entirety.

So, CCH wrote a letter and said they would test anything in this date range, plus it sounds to me that anyone requesting a test gets one done anyway.

Is all this just way over the top for a consumer to figure out, probably yes. I'm disappointed CCH didn't make it more clear as to what they were doing on their website in the recall notice, FAQ, or News when they issued their letter in Aug 06 indicating the date range is what is important covering the entire unit production, which still I can't find on their website.

Basically, one sentence in this Aug 06 letter changed our perception of what the problem was:

"The window of the recall was 11-04 to 12-05, thus any Alien cams date coded during this period should be tested, dimpled or not."

So, I'm concerned about this whole situation. But I just haven't seen something outside the recall dates that indicates there is still a problem directly relating to the manufacturing & testing process.

Something else to consider?
If you have taken a fall on one of your aliens (or funked it, or tensile tested it) and it held, can you feel confident that it is not going to break later? The pictures of the yellow cam make it look like the cable broke inside of the head due to some defect created during the assembly of the cam. If you stress a cam and it has one of these defects couldn't it bring the unit just shy of the breaking point with no visible indication that the cam was weakened?... and then on your next fall it fails? This a honest question...I'm not an engineer or metallurgist.

It seems like there are too many uncertainties in the quality of the manufacturing process for me to trust my aliens right now. Unfortunately it seems like all we can do is wait for answers from CCH or someone qualified to assess the three most recent failed cams, and it doesn't really seem like thats going to happen based on the response from the last round of failures.

Yes, but couldn't you say that about any cam manufacturer? I mean why only CCH.

I guess one thing I do pretty well is I mix up my rock pro between Metolius, Wild Country, CCH, BD, & Camp.

Man, all hail the mighty hex, nut, & tri cam. If anything has been proven without a doubt, tri-cams can stay in cracks until the friggin end of time.

Hampton Uzzelle wrote:Something else to consider? If you have taken a fall on one of your aliens (or funked it, or tensile tested it) and it held, can you feel confident that it is not going to break later? ...

In any uncontrolled, unknown load that is likely to have been extreme and perhaps anywhere near the lower end of the breaking strength of the narmal population and very hard, you should consider retiring the unit.
THink it over- the thing that set the odd failure up does not have to have been a manufacturing issue. It could have been the user.

In the F.A. world we call this "walking wounded."

In test engineering there is a reason why you don't just go toss random tests out at parts- you scientifically determine what should NOT hurt them and then test them like that so as not to create a later failure.

Yep, at some point, they expanded the recall from dimpled cams to a date range, but did not publicize it very well. This change about doubled the number of cams that I had to send in for testing. All of mine appearently passed and were stamped.

A friend and I just finished some impromptu testing of CCH Aliens in actual rock placements. The cams ranged in size and age (both pre and post recall). We yanked on them using a car - and while we don't have a dynamometer (yet) I can tell you that the force was much greater than what you'd get in a typical climbing fall: the car was often yanked backward, the knots in the climbing rope were completely impossible to untie, and the 31-kN carabiner we were using was deformed.

Bottom line: the cams were bomber. There were no cable or brazing failures. In all cases where we pulled to failure, the ROCK failed before the cams did. (These were solid placements in good quality granite.) The cables were all twisted up, the lobes badly deformed (and inverted as the rock blew apart), and the loops pulled into wild shapes - but NO brazing failures, NO cable failure. Just lots of rock dust.

See the initial results with photos and video at geir.com/aliens.html

How old are those aliens? some look new and some look old. and why would you pull them to failure.. that just seems dumb lol if they work then keep them in shape to use them.. there is no point in having a broken, solid cam.. you aren't proving or disproving anything.

people are pulling their cams to 50% so imperfections will show up but not destroy the cam if it is fine.

congrats.. you have a pile of crap

Jake,

I've been climbing for about 25years and I have a shit load of these things, I don't mind breaking a few for some peace of mind.
The point here is that the cables and braising do not break pre and post recall cch units. We actually did prove something. So if people don't trust their gear, they should either test it themselves, send it in and get it tested or clip bolts.
Every unit sold by cch post recall is tensel tested before it's sold!
There is way too much smack talkin on the forums, we need some serious testing to get some trust back here.

JF

Jake,

Congratulations, your brilliant argument has invalidated the need for destructive testing worldwide. Over the next two weeks, be sure to look for thank-you cards in your mailbox from every major manufacturer of climbing gear.

We simply wanted to do a quick, simple test, find out where the weakest link in the system was, and report something positive for a change.

ok.. you have a ton of them.. yours tested out fine and passed the test by inverting instead of getting pulled apart. The problem with CCH is there is no consistency... Their manufacturing and testing seem so random that people have to personally test every piece individually to a certain amount before using them..

I agree.. BD etc i'm sure blows a bunch of cams per batch to make sure nothing is wrong. They however seem to be organized and repeatable in their building of the cams to have the confidence that if none of the test cams blow then 99.99 whatever % of the batch should be bomber.

"The point here is that the cables and braising do not break pre and post recall cch units. " Oh yea? Russ broke one at 900 lbs that was not dimpled or part of the recall..

" The recalled units are marked with a small center punch dimple at the base of the round ball where the axle goes through the cable eye. They have production dates, from
November 2004 (written as 1104) through December 2005 (written as 1205), which can be
found on the bottom of the handle puller. " - CCH Recall

sounders crack fall.. non dimpled post-recall alien marked 3/07

CCH doesn't need something positive said about them.. they need to get their ass in gear. Or sell their stuff to a company that knows how.

I agree everyone should test their aliens before leading over them.. I have 2 that i will do that before going out on them. they are both 4/06 post recall without TT stamping

Jake,

Go to the top of this post and you will see that Russ did edit his post and that the unit was a recalled cam.
Our testing was simply to see if we could get failure with the braising or with the cable. This has been the topic of the post.
BTW, years ago I tested (with a dynomometer) #2 BD camalots that failed around 2600 lbs. No single piece is bomb proof.
I think if climbers went after other cam manufactures with the same intensity, perhaps they would find some inconsistencies as well.

JF

It's in the date range.. i'm looking for where CCH says it includes all cams in that range and not just the dimpled ones.. It's not on the pop up on their website and it's not on the Official recall pdf page they link to