Quality Issues With Climb-X Hangers

It seems more than a handful of people have experienced issues. The latest incident just occurred.

reddit.com/r/climbing/comme…

rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/fo…;post=2624440;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Thank you for the heads up, 20 kN.

I have a few I can donate for drop testing.. I will pay for shipping... Who should I send them to?

I think all climbx gear has quality issues.

javd wrote:I think all climbx gear has quality issues.

their shoes work just fine and outlast my sportivas

as to the hangers, it would be good idea to eliminate other factors before blaming climbx ... as i stated on the reddit thread, the place where they are bolted seems like a tropical jungle environment

it may be the manufacturer, or there may be other factors

perhaps one should test a few of those hangers .... hmmmm

;)

I've had a look thru the linked posts.

As a materials engineer, I'd say that the failed hangers should be analyzed to see what steel they actually are, and to try to see why they failed. If someone has some samples of failed hangers they can send them to me. Message me for my address.

Best would be if ClimbX has this done by an independent failure analysis company.

Just looking at the various photos, and not knowing many facts other than that, the obvious observations are:
- not much visible bulk corrosion
- not much plastic deformation
- they didn't break at the point of highest tensile stress (on the outside of the bend)

From what I've read of various people's theories of failure, I would say:
(1) Failure due to "Chinese steel": well, a huge amount of steel is made in China, it's not the PLACE that's the issue, it's the quality control on who supplied it, and who bought it. A supply chain issue.

If it's for a safety critical item like a hanger, then you need to know what you're getting.
And then you'll pay a bit more.
If you are a reputable manufacturer, with control of your supply chain, QA system in place and you produce to the relevant standards, then stuff like this is much less likely to happen to you (and to your customers)

(2) Confusion over supply of indoors steel versus outdoors stainless steel: well, without knowing what steel is used indoors, I doubt this is responsible. It hasn't seemed to fail due to bulk corrosion (which steel mean't for indoors might have), and if it failed due to applied load, well how is that different from an indoors hanger?? Unless they are badly designed, and made of very brittle steel that cracks like that.

Without knowing anything more, I'd bet that it's going to be something like:
- Wrong type of steel used (something like grade 303 stainless). 303 has been shown to crack like this due to crevice corrosion, due to the sulphur content in 303, which is there to make it machinable, but makes for poor corrosion resistance
- SCC, again due to poor match of material to the environment (which incidentally might NOT be the fault of the manufacturer if they say do NOT use in this sort of application)
- wrong application by end user: do they say that these hangers can or cannot be used in places like this? Perhaps their info says only place inn a desert, etc etc.
BearBreeder makes a good point: it might NOT be their fault. So rather get some facts first.
But it DOES seem poor.

The only info I have on CimbX hangers is from their web site, on the PitBull hanger.
They say it is "rated" to 25kN.
No mention of any certification (UIAA or EN).
They say it's made of 304 "marine grade", which is somewhat confusing, usually "marine grade" is applied to 316.

The UIAA's findings are that 304 is a poor choice for outdoor's anchors anywhere. You're better off with 316 in areas where no SCC is expected. 316 costs just a bit more and is MUCH more resistant to pitting.
In the EU you cannot buy any safety critical construction anchors made of 304, only 316 or better.

If they were either UIAA or EN certified then they could be pressurized into doing a recall and taking direct action. But since they are not (or don't SEEM to carry one for these hangers), there's not much that can be done like that.

My advice would be to buy safety critical climbing gear from manufacturers who carry a UIAA or CE mark. That doesn't solve every issue, but it's a step in the right direction.

Alan Jarvis
UIAA Safety Commission

javd wrote:I think all climbx gear has quality issues.

Blows my mind that people would buy hangers from ClimbX, really. Their business model generally revolves around operating outside of the US, and sidestepping patent law to produce things cheaply. I won't buy any of their gear including shoes (Madrock anyone?) for that reason, and certainly not anything that my life relies on.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: Blows my mind that people would buy hangers from ClimbX, really. Their business model generally revolves around operating outside of the US, and sidestepping patent law to produce things cheaply. I won't buy any of their gear including shoes (Madrock anyone?) for that reason, and certainly not anything that my life relies on.

Exactly. Their business model mirrors that of a hedge fund manager, so it bewilders me that some climbers think Climb X is actually going to put any effort whatsoever into quality control or workmanship. The environment probably played a role in the failure of these hangers, but unquestionably Climb X's shitty quality and design played an even deeper role. I would be willing to bet a fair dollar the Petzl 3.2mm 316 hanger would have lasted far longer in that environment.

20 kN wrote: Exactly. Their business model mirrors that of a hedge fund manager, so it bewilders me that some climbers think Climb X is actually going to put any effort whatsoever into quality control or workmanship. The environment probably played a role in the failure of these hangers, but unquestionably Climb X's shitty quality and design played an even deeper role. I would be willing to bet a fair dollar the Petzl 3.2mm 316 hanger would have lasted far longer in that environment.

do you have the hangers in hand to test, since yr the guy on here wh makes threads about testing things yourself personally?

have you seen em and used em in person? do you know for a fact that the bolter did not say put regular steel hangers over stainless steel bolts, since youve confirmed from samples in yr hand or in a lab that the hangers are indeed "stainless" steel?

it may be the manufacturer ... but being the "responsible" person you are i would expect you to have tested or have access to such tests of their gear before making such statements

personally this IMO is a good example of where uiaa/ce/en is useful for climbing safety gear

;)

First, glad the OP is ok.

Second, I think it's been pretty obvious to everybody who has been paying attention to this outfit that it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see:
mountainproject.com/v/climb…
dpmclimbing.com/articles/vi…

I knew one of their reps back when they first got started, and he gave me the whole inside story, trying to make it sound like it was on the up-and-up, but even coming out of the mouth of someone who shamelessly advocated for them, and twisted all the facts to their favor, it was pretty clear that ClimbX was (and is) a shady-as-hell company making knock-off gear that only a fool would trust. Figures that the rep was the sketchiest stoner of a free-solo artist you've ever met.

The worst part - none of their gear is actually that much cheaper. Usually $15-20, so maybe a couple of hundred bucks cheaper, if you are buying, like, a complete double set of cams. So, don't see how it's worth it.

WarthogARJ wrote:They say it is "rated" to 25kN. No mention of any certification (UIAA or EN). They say it's made of 304 "marine grade", which is somewhat confusing, usually "marine grade" is applied to 316.

These three sentences summarize this entire company.

WarthogARJ wrote: You're better off with 316 in areas where no SCC is expected. 316 costs just a bit more

Aaaaannnnndddd we've pinpointed why they went with 304.

Here's hoping the somebody tests the steel, then (assuming that's the issue) sues the living shit out of these people.

• EDITED to ease the hate (and combine two posts)

MegaGaper2000 wrote: These three sentences summarize this entire company. Aaaaannnnndddd we've pinpointed why the knockoff artists went with 304!

The Fixe #038 Stainless Steel Hanger is currently the strongest hanger available, rated at 10,000. Model #038 will accomodate two carabiners, has three dimples to help prevent spinning and is cut from 4mm 304 stainless. This hanger has become the industry standard and is used in rope access and military personnel, the rigging and entertainment industry and can be found at cliffs across the North America.


fixehardware.com/shop/hange…

just as an example ... here is an example of possible galvanic corrosion at index, not exactly a tropical rain forest environment ... two bolts/hangers failed





cascadeclimbers.com/forum/u…

look similar to the first pic at the top of the thread?

no one really knows until someone

- talks to the route developer and find out if both the bolts and hangers are stainless steel

- and sends those hangers in to test them to confirm they are indeed stainless, the type of stainless advertised (not mislabeled and the developer was not mistaken) and that they actually do meet their rating

but this being MP ... we wont have any such of course

;)

bearbreeder wrote: but this being MP ... we wont have any such of course ;)

of course.
;)

I'm all for testing, and due diligence, and deliberation, and not jumping to conclusions, and yada yada yada. But at a certain point, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. IE, how many times do you hear old-timers saying, 'I still trust this knock-off gear I bought because no one has proved it's unsafe yet?'

Not very often.

Hi all,
Well I'm not trying to be deluged with 100's of failed hangers & bolts to test, but if people have failed samples I AM interested.

And I think it's a good idea to start to document issues/failures a bit better.
I'm talking to our web site and legal people about what we can do as the UIAA to help.
There's an obvious issue with liability, so we'd need to be careful not to make unfounded claims.

But I don't think a list of "issues" with anchors is going to cause problems.
With details and photos.
And any materials analysis posted as well.
And manufacturers could post comments as well if they wanted to.

I'd like to be able to put links to forums etc on it, so people can follow what others say.

So to get the ball rolling, if you have samples of failures I'd like to get them.
Email me and I'll give you an address.

Best regards,
Alan Jarvis
UIAA Safety Commission
MCSA Delegate

MegaGaper2000 wrote: of course. ;) I'm all for testing, and due diligence, and deliberation, and not jumping to conclusions, and yada yada yada. But at a certain point, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. IE, how many times do you hear old-timers saying, 'I still trust this knock-off gear I bought because no one has proved it's unsafe yet?' Not very often.

quack quack quack?

theres been multiple cases of battered X4s, some of which have pulled, by "experienced climbers" .. for a newish cam they sure are seeing a beating !!!

but its likely "user error" to a large degree till it can be determined otherwise .... how many "old timers" would use an X4? ... i know at least one who does personally =P







quack quack quack ...

how about them evil mammut biners ... user error or "poor design" ... no rush to judgements !!!

steph davis uses em ... but then mammut does sponsor her

many of the comments on this thread have little to do with the the broken hangars in questions but is rather a litany of "how much i hate climbx"

which is typical of MP

the broken hangars may be the manufacturers fault, or it could be installation error, or some other factor

a UIAA representative has offered to test samples, which im sure all the folks here have in hand, responsible MPers here would never make such statements without using the product in the first place and having it tested properly

never ... ever ...

;)

Understandably ClimbX is a company making knockoffs of MadRock. I've read the stories and articles, court documents, etc. However, I'm pretty sure another climbing gear manufacturer produces all of it's products in China as well, and people revere them as the greatest ever. And come to think about it, most carabiners are manufactured in China, and a lot of other life saving climbing gear.

I would be more apt to attribute gear failure to human error not manufacturing. Not to say that manufacturing issues don't happen(CCH) but most QC catches that. The second picture in 20 kN's post is hard to tell why it is failed, but I wonder if it is caused by the hanger not laying flat on the rock causing excessive strain. The first picture definitely appears to be due to corrosion, and that looks very similar to the photo bearbreeder posted, which is Fixe.

I think what should really be taken away from any of this is that no gear lasts forever and anything fixed on a climb, bolts included should be treated with some degree of caution. And remember as I was once told, "It's called stain-less steel, not rust-proof steel." Every element eventually wants to be lead.

I may yet end up eating my words. Which would be strange, because then I would probably have no excuse not to leave my house more, and in general become a kind, considerate person. Hmmmm.....

Hi,
Well I'm interested in building up a bit better set of case histories and SCC failures to anchors.
That's my main interest in the anchors.

So if it turns out it wasn't SCC that's OK too.

For the other gear failures, we do a report back on "unusual failures" etc, and I can add them to that.

Alan

I recently came across a cracked Climb X hanger here in Acadia National Park, Maine.

This was the crux bolt on a route that was equipped in 2012/13. It is in a moist, wooded environment, but the route itself does not see much running water. It is also inland enough that the coastal fog is not a serious concern. The bolt was seemingly well placed (flush against the wall) in good granite.

I thought I was just going to replace the cracked hanger. Maybe they all need to go...

Andrewww wrote:Understandably ClimbX is a company making knockoffs of MadRock. I've read the stories and articles, court documents, etc. However, I'm pretty sure another climbing gear manufacturer produces all of it's products in China as well, and people revere them as the greatest ever. And come to think about it, most carabiners are manufactured in China, and a lot of other life saving climbing gear. I would be more apt to attribute gear failure to human error not manufacturing. Not to say that manufacturing issues don't happen(CCH) but most QC catches that.

The argument isn't country of origin at all. BD makes all their gear in China, but their factories are responsibly staffed and well taken care of. They are not what people generally mean when they refer to "Made in China." That's an entirely different company and argument, mostly founded in ultra-patriotic nonsense and fear mongering no less.

Furthermore, saying "Most QC catches that" is a rather trusting phrase when we're talking about a company that's not based in China for cheap labor, but rather for lack of patent enforcement. When a company is outside the U.S. to sidestep very respectable laws, you can't rely on their QC to catch a damn thing if they're not rated by CE or the UIAA. Seeing as a quick check of their site shows that most of their life-saving gear (biners, draws, nuts, cams) are all CE certified, one has to wonder why the gear that sees the most use (and from hundreds of different people) is NOT certified.

As I said before, I still won't buy anything from Climb X on principle due to their past actions, but at least buy gear that is certified, regardless of price or vendor.

Several of the posts in this thread seemingly accuse ClimbX of manufacturing products in China in order to avoid U.S. patent laws.

I doubt that this really has anything to do with patents.

If Madrock has U.S. patents, (and a quick patent search I ran showed 5 of them relating to rock shoe design) and ClimbX is violating those patents, then ClimbX would not be allowed to sell the infringing products in the U.S., regardless of where those products were manufactured. Manufacturing in China doesn't give you immunity from U.S. patent laws, unless the patent deals with methods of manufacture (not the case with Madrock's patents.)

It is unlikely that ClimbX is manufacturing products in China "to sidestep very respectable laws." It's more likely that ClimbX is manufacturing in China because China has the manufacturing infrastructure that allows ClimbX to contract manufacture its products at a Chinese factory without having to front the capital to build its own manufacturing facilities. (Same reason that most footwear these days is made overseas.)

With regards to "knock-off" products, copying another company's designs is legitimate, provided you are not infringing any patents. Black Diamond had a patent monopoly on twin axle cams for a while. When their patent expired, several other companies came out with twin axle cams. I'm glad that they did, because I prefer some of these "knock off" designs to BD's original. Same with Dynafit ski bindings. Once the Dynafit patent expired, we've seen a lot of competition and innovation. "Knock-off" products provide price competition and innovation competition. There is not (and shouldn't be) any sort of gentleman's agreement not to copy a competitor's product. (Where would we be if everyone decided not to "knock off" Boreal's idea to use sticky rubber on a rock shoe?) If you want exclusivity, and want to protect innovative qualities of your product, then get a patent. Utility patents are there to protect innovative inventions. Design patents are there to protect distinctive designs.

Glancing at the material that was linked here regarding the Madrock/ClimbX disputes, it appears to me that their fight had nothing at all to do with patents. It seems like Madrock moved their production from China to Vietnam, and ClimbX contracted with the Chinese manufacturer that Madrock was previously using to make shoes that were similar or identical to those that Madrock was making there. Unless Madrock owned the equipment that the shoes were being manufactured on (highly unlikely) or unless Madrock had a non-compete agreement with the Chinese facility that it would not produce similar rock shoes for any competitor (possible, but difficult to enforce because small changes would probably be sufficient to get around this prohibition) or unless Madrock had a non-compete agreement in place with the ClimbX founders (more likely, but probably unenforceable under California law where Madrock is located) then there really is nothing that would prevent ClimbX from doing what it was doing, and that is true whether ClimbX was making shoes in China, in the U.S., or in any other country.

I don't own any Madrock or ClimbX products. I don't have any connection or affiliation with either company. However, it seems like there are some fundamental misunderstandings in this thread regarding common business practices. The key question here is whether or not ClimbX maintains proper quality control over its products and whether the hangars it's selling are safe. All of the misstatements regarding "patent violations" just serve to muddy the waters.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: Furthermore, saying "Most QC catches that" is a rather trusting phrase when we're talking about a company that's not based in China for cheap labor, but rather for lack of patent enforcement. When a company is outside the U.S. to sidestep very respectable laws, you can't rely on their QC to catch a damn thing if they're not rated by CE or the UIAA.

Black Diamond had a patent monopoly on twin axle cams for a while. When their patent expired, several other companies came out with twin axle cams.


The difference here being that the other companies improved upon Black Diamond's design, they dident straight-out copy it. Improving upon is one thing, copying is another. Climb X literally made photocopies of every product Mad Rock made, whereas DMM took BD's design, modified it quite a fair bit, then produced a new product with a modified design—big difference.