Fixe Chest Ascender

[Simon Wilson]

I am not pretending to have any more understanding of the law than I have - which is relatively little understanding. But the way I understand it is that manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers are all legally required to ensure that PPE is CE compliant and correctly CE marked.

 

[nickwilliams]

You are correct that PPE must be CE marked if it is to be legally sold in the EEA. However, the requirement for CE marking is to meet the essential requirements of the Directive and while the easy way to do this will be to conform to an appropriate standard, compliance with the standard is not of itself mandatory.

For category 3 PPE, any deviation from the standard would have to be agreed with the type-test Notified Body. They would not agree to any deviation unless there is a very good reason.

 

[Mark Wright]

Just a few thoughts, not necessarily in any particular order at this time of night.

You are correct that PPE must be CE marked if it is to be legally sold in the EEA. However, the requirement for CE marking is to meet the essential requirements of the Directive and while the easy way to do this will be to conform to an appropriate standard, compliance with the standard is not of itself mandatory.

The Petzl Paw rigging plate being an example of carrying a CE mark but no EN Standard. There is no EN Standard for rigging plates, currently. Belay devices such as the Petzl GriGri have only recently gained their own EN Standard, EN15151-1.

Technically Petzl Vertex Best and Alveo Best helmets also come into this category as, when the chinstrap is fastened, they conform to the mountaineering standard only and when the chinstrap is unfastened they conform to the industrial standard only. Some would argue they conform to both standards but 'technically' they conform to neither.

Back to chest ascenders. there is other important information that should be marked on Cat. 111 PPE.

A unique number for one, otherwise there can be no effective quality assurance. It should also have the load used during testing. This is usually incorrectly referred to as the max safe working load or something similar. It's actually a very misleading requirement for marking PPE products. Its usually 140kg to cater for the US market.

We know what weight of caver will likely damage the rope, it tells you in the user information, so the end user can decide on their preferred factor of safety, e.g. a 200kg caver would have a better than 2:1 safety factor on a new Petzl Croll (assuming they didn't shock load it). A safety harness eye bolt that a window cleaner might attach to has a 2:1 factor of safety and the rope access industry works on a 2.5:1 safety factor, i.e. 6kN (max. impact force) x 2.5 (FOS) = 15kN = +/- 1,500kg minimum recommended anchor strength.

If you buy a safety critical product from a company such as Petzl or DMM you pay a little more. I don't mind because I know that if I have purchased it from an official and reputable reseller (not eBay) it will be a bona-fide product and I won't have to worry about whether the CE mark is real or whether it is actually a cheep Chinese knock off, because it won't be.

I had a similar experience a few years ago with some ropes being sold in the UK by a South African company with offices on the south coast. The sample they sent me had no markings whatsoever on its ends or through its inner core. I questioned this, their excuse being it was from their sample batch and they were just going through the process of the rope gaining EN1891A approval. The paperwork they sent me for the rope was very different to anything I had seen before, very confusing. They did not give me any confidence.

The rope might have been cheap but the cost of my due diligence would likely have far outweighed the cost savings on the rope. The company did get the rope certified eventually but it was years rather than the months they assured me it was going to take. The rope did perform well during testing and was very abrasion resistant. They sent through a copy of their current rope's paperwork just recently and it was no longer confusing. It looked just like the paperwork you would get from Beal, Edelrid or Teufelburger.

Their prices are no longer as cheap as they were a few years ago but are now in line with all the other reputable manufacturers selling ropes in the UK. It costs money to do things right and when it comes to Cat. 111 PPE, for protection against mortal danger, every aspect of its production should be 100% right, markings, paperwork and everything.

If a qualified PPE Examiner were asked to inspect an item of Cat. 111 PPE which had no unique number, they would remove it from service immediately.

The Fixe Ascender bought by Madness for ?26.00 inc. postage makes it about 50% cheaper than the Petzl equivalent. That should start alarm bells ringing very loudly in my mind.

Whilst Madness might not think ?26.00 inc. postage is a great loss if it turns out to be crap, I bet his wife would disagree.

We used to have a saying at one of the companies I used to work for;

Vile emptum, bis emptum (Buy cheap, buy twice)

In this case;

Vile emptum, ut moriatur (Buy cheap, might die)

Mark

 

[ianball11]

With the current Petzl offering, what's the Latin for  "Buy Expensive, Might die"? 

Just to add, I realise jammers dont make you invincible,

Oddly, I would not normally see an issue buying the Alpkit offering, but wouldnt buy something off ebay like that.  Nor would I buy a 2nd hand jammer.  Of all the current offerings I think Im heading towards the Anthron because Simons info has scared me off a croll and Mark has scared me off a Fixe.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Before this discussion I assumed that PPE had to comply with the relevant standard and had to be marked with the correct CE marking for that standard. And I don't think I will be the only one making that assumption.

Now Nick has told us -

You are correct that PPE must be CE marked if it is to be legally sold in the EEA. However, the requirement for CE marking is to meet the essential requirements of the Directive and while the easy way to do this will be to conform to an appropriate standard, compliance with the standard is not of itself mandatory.

So let's get this clear - they have to put a CE mark on it but it doesn't have to comply with any standard?

I've probably misunderstood this because it appears like a licence for Alpkit to sell cheap Chinese stuff and pass it off as certified by putting a CE mark on it.

 

[Mark Wright]

Before this discussion I assumed that PPE had to comply with the relevant standard and had to be marked with the correct CE marking for that standard. And I don't think I will be the only one making that assumption.

Now Nick has told us -

You are correct that PPE must be CE marked if it is to be legally sold in the EEA. However, the requirement for CE marking is to meet the essential requirements of the Directive and while the easy way to do this will be to conform to an appropriate standard, compliance with the standard is not of itself mandatory.

So let's get this clear - they have to put a CE mark on it but it doesn't have to comply with any standard?

I've probably misunderstood this because it appears like a licence for Alpkit to sell cheap Chinese stuff and pass it off as certified by putting a CE mark on it.

It doesn't have to meet the requirements of an EN Standard if there isn't an EN Standard for that particular product. I gave an example of the Paw rigging plate which falls into this category.

All PPE must be CE marked. This shows it to meet the minimum requirements of the PPE directive and the subsequent Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations.

For Category iii PPE, CE marking indicates that the product has been independently type tested and meets the basic requirements of the PPE directive and subsequent Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations.

The prime function of CE marking is to protect against barriers to trade within the EU. It is not meant to be a mark of quality although Category iii PPE is (should be) subjected to such rigorous controls that this point could be argued otherwise.

CE marking alone does not mean the item is fit for the intended application. When purchasing or choosing an item of PPE, ensure first that it conforms to the appropriate EN Standard (if there is one) for that particular application and that the item will operate effectively in that particular environment and configuration.

As there is an EN Standard for rope adjustment devices (ascenders) they should comply with the mountaineering standard EN567 or the industrial standard EN12841B or, more likely, both.

You never know, these ascenders, whatever they may or may not conform to or wherever they might be manufactured, might be absolutely brilliant, but then again they might be absolutely lethal.

You pays your money and takes your choice. I'll be sticking with equipment manufacturers who give me confidence and for that I don't mind paying more.

Mark

 

[Madness]

I've probably misunderstood this because it appears like a licence for Alpkit to sell cheap Chinese stuff and pass it off as certified by putting a CE mark on it.

I don't think that Alpkit are doing anything untoward. The Fixe Ascender carries the CE mark and comes with paperwork that states it complies with EN567.

The fact that the Ascender looks identical to Chinese ones available on eBay suggests that Fixe may not being totally honest about where it is made. However, it could be that the Ascender's components are made in China, but it's assembled in Spain.

The fact that the paperwork gives details of the companies who tested/certified the Ascender gives me confidence that it is cosher.

 

[nickwilliams]

I agree with everything which Mark says except that the Personal Protective Equipment at Work regs are not part of the CE marking requirements: they are what is known as 'in service' legislation which governs what users (and their employers) must do, and these requirements are kept strictly separate from the requirements for vendors (manufacturers, importers, etc). The PPE at Work Regs are based on an EU Directive but this draws its legal basis from a different article of the Treaty forming the European Union - one which deals with worker protection rather than free trade.

As I have already said, any manufacturer not following a Harmonised standard must justify their choices to their type-test Notified Body. The NoBo will always try to apply the standard as completely and fully as possible, but if the manufacturer can convince them that they have a better (= safer) solution than one proposed by the standard then the NoBo is free to accept it. This is what is known as the 'New Approach' and it means that out of date standards do not stand in the way of technical progress. All the CE marking directives* work this way.

EN 567:2013 does not require the number of the standard to be marked on the device, only that it be given in the accompanying information. The original (1993) version of EN 567 required 'EN567' to be marked on the product, but this requirement was removed by the 1997 version of the standard.

(* except one, but the discussion about construction products is over here: http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=20548.175)

 

[HardenClimber3]

One of the problems is that we put faith in 'Names' (not much choice really.
Black Diamond were (are?) a highly respected US  climbing equipment manufacturer who have been through various managerial changes including a venture capital buy out. Quite a bit of their equipment was manufactured in China and maintained good quality control. For various reasons (perhaps including marketing) manufacturing was repatriated to the USA. Since then they have had a run of product recalls for serious failures in QC. It certainly looks as if they eased off on the QC when manufacturing was returned to a 'respectable' country. 
'Joke' on climbing site:  'fortunately my BD gear was made in China'.

 

[Madness]

There comes a point whereby you have to trust that known brands of equipment, whether it be Fixe, Faders, Petzl, Camp, DMM, Wild Country or whoever, are doing things properly and that their equipment has been thoroughly tested and is safe/fit for purpose. Without this trust we wouldn't be ble to do much without the fear of death spoiling our fun.

 

[HardenClimber3]

It is trying to balance confidence in past performance with current unknowns.
Thus, perhaps, the place of manufacture is less of a guide than the companies quality control. But, how do we know what the quality control is like?
Is the company still the company we grew to trust or a new one with the same name (and look)?
4 years ago would people have been talking about boycotting Petzl, would they be making snide jokes about the quality of BD hardware?
As you say, we have to trust something (took a climbing friend on his first srt trip last week - one of his first thoughts was how it highlighted your dependence on your gear), but we shouldn't do that blindly.

 

[pwhole]

I guess this sort of equipment is considered by the manufacturer and customer mainly as trade-off between weight, functionality/usability and cost, as one would assume (until recently) that safety/build quality/QC is a given fact when dealing with 'reputable' companies.

I would be interested to know how much a chest ascender would actually cost if it were reasonably abrasion-proof so as not to need a wear-plate but stay intact, and that the teeth on the cam didn't wear out in a year - but it was still light enough to be manageable - i.e. maybe using titanium frames instead of aluminium, and maybe high-tech ceramic or special steels for the cams? If it only came out at something like ?70-?80 instead of ?30-?50 it might still be appealing.

For something so critical to keeping me alive, I'm not looking for a bargain, I'm looking for top-quality, and I'd happily pay more if it meant removing all this doubt. Still thinking about the TurboChest though.

 

[Simon Wilson]

There comes a point whereby you have to trust that known brands of equipment, whether it be Fixe, Faders, Petzl, Camp, DMM, Wild Country or whoever, are doing things properly and that their equipment has been thoroughly tested and is safe/fit for purpose.

It is trying to balance confidence in past performance with current unknowns.
Thus, perhaps, the place of manufacture is less of a guide than the companies quality control. But, how do we know what the quality control is like?

... one would assume (until recently) that safety/build quality/QC is a given fact when dealing with 'reputable' companies.

I am prejudiced against Fixe for several reasons. They dealt with one previous case of gear failure in a way that looked inept and like a cover up. They disagreed with others about the cause of the failure, made a public statement and then removed it and went quiet. The said the device was made in Spain but I think it might have been made in Spain using cheap Chinese chain. http://www.outdoorsafetyinstitute.com/index.php/news/single/warning_notice_fixe_anchors/

What I don't like about the way many companies operate is that they source products in the Far East but appear to try to hide it.

 

[cavemanmike]

on a slightly different note but relevant , i was told by a rep for a company i deal with that blades where being manufactured in india and imported into sheffield then stamped with made in sheffield . this was a long time ago as well ,mid 90's

 

[NewStuff]

on a slightly different note but relevant , i was told by a rep for a company i deal with that blades where being manufactured in india and imported into sheffield then stamped with made in sheffield . this was a long time ago as well ,mid 90's

It happens with companies now, that practice didn't go anywhere. Technically, if the last significant manufacturing step in in the UK, then they can stamp/label it as made in the UK. What constitutes a significant manufacturing step is open to interpretation.

 

[Mark Wright]

on a slightly different note but relevant , i was told by a rep for a company i deal with that blades where being manufactured in india and imported into sheffield then stamped with made in sheffield . this was a long time ago as well ,mid 90's

The company Bob Toogood works for import blades from China (I think he said) and when the've been installed into a pen knife body or had a handle installed they are sold as made in Sheffield.

If you've got any kitchen knives with John Lewis marked on them, they are fully made in Sheffield.

Mark

 

[PeteHall]

We have a cheap multi-tool at home (not bought by me I'll add!) that has "Sheffield" stamped all over it. Look closer and you'll see "Sheffield" is the brand name and it is made in China... 

 

[al]

If you've got any kitchen knives with John Lewis marked on them, they are fully made in Sheffield.

Not the Outer Hebrides then?