Rich's hands are soft! They're just lovely

Oooh Robbie, I'm so thrilled that you noticed.

OK. Time to take it back channel, boys!

Added: Obviously any informed climber one who would use them must be the wrong religion



I had that problem too. I swore off new aliens long ago but hoped mine might be ok since they were so old. Then Aric came along and proved my opinion of recent CCH quality control and extended it to virtually all CCH product.

Mine just went last week - partly to insure that I wouldn't lend them to someone!

Added: Obviously any informed climber one who would use them must be the wrong religion:-)

In this video the alien seems to hold its own.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/900-members-of-dragon-con_n_278787.html

The Alien is set back a bit, you have to wait about 30 secs before you can really see it.

OK - we seem to have a problem here and it's not being talked about. Everything I am about to write is second hand.

Apparently Aric's tests were faulty because the test surface was too smooth. This is from R&S staff. Nobody that I have talked to actually knows what this means for the validity of the tests although RG has attempted to explain it verbally. My second hand retelling of this did not convince me of anything.

It would be much appreciated if Rich could provide some comments for the rest of us with a lighter physics/engineering background.

In the sake of fairness, it also seems that Aric should redo his tests since he has sown much uncertainty, which may put someone's business at risk.

My open items:
1) what would happen if the tests were conducted to UIAA standards?
2) still not happy about the erratic quality of brazing, cam angles and metal softness
3) how rigorously are the other cam options tested?
4) people have been using aliens for years and I (nor some others) have not heard reports of failures that would seem consistent with the expressed concerns so the real world effectiveness seems "better".

In any case, I (and a bunch of silent ppl that I am intermediating for) would love to have some more info to base a decision on.

Appreciate more information, particularly from the tester, who has been rather quiet.

thank you

There is no refuting the few field failures that Alien users have experienced and that is good enough for me. I've never seen another brand of cam pull apart like that. I now have two Blue MasterCams and one Yellow and they have been very good. I really liked Aliens.
I don't know Aric but surely appreciate the time and effort he put into his study. Pull out strength may not be as bad on a rougher surface and should certainly be looked at, but the often seen deformation at relatively low loads would not be effected by surface roughness.

Frankly, I need no other evidence to make a decision, than than the photo of the cross-sectioned, EMPTY braze joint of the pre-recall Alien.

You can quibble over surface details and testing all you want, you can ignore the many reports of failures and accidents, but - EMPTY. You can't inspect inside it; it's just a time bomb.

EMPTY.

Chip

What you say makes sense to me, but I have heard statements to the extent that it would make a difference, which is why I am asking.

I appreciate his time and effort as well and have no doubts that he had all the best intentions. But he did make an error and the follow-up has not matched the rigor of the initial presentation.

Perhaps the answer is that Aliens should be rated much lower due to their design (setting about the QC issue).

Julie - As noted, not disputing the brazing and other issues. I am just trying to get all the information out there so people can make more informed decisions.

Julie/Chip - can you point to reports with pictures and good evidence of all these failures?

thanks

also - I sent Aric my Aliens to blow up - but if I recall, his first baby was due soon. So if he's delayed by baby-gazing and diaper-changing, that's good by me.