The deadly croll

[andrewmcleod]

The cynic in me would suggest that the reason they are dropping the stainless wear plate is because I imagine that it is cheaper to produce Crolls without them.

The cynic in me suggests that Petzl are still totally happy with the overall safety of the wear plate design for the majority of users (i.e. users not running their Crolls into the ground on crappy ropes), and the new Crolls doesn't have a wear plate for the same reason a lot of early mobile phones had pull-out plastic sticks that looked like aerials.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Andrew, can ask you to go back to the top of this thread, read the report at the start then find the similar report from the Spanish cavers which is up this thread (#48 - Google translate works OK to get the gist) and read my report with the graphics which is also up this thread. Think about it and try to understand the problem because you really haven't understood the problem.

I think it would also help if you had experience of wearing out Crolls. How many Crolls have you worn out?

 

[Fulk]

and the new Crolls doesn't have a wear plate for the same reason a lot of early mobile phones had pull-out plastic sticks that looked like aerials

I'm baffled; would you care to elucidate, andrewmc?

 

[andrewmcleod]

and the new Crolls doesn't have a wear plate for the same reason a lot of early mobile phones had pull-out plastic sticks that looked like aerials

I'm baffled; would you care to elucidate, andrewmc?

People thought mobile phones without aerials would have worse signal, so some manufacturers put fake aerials on. Petzl may have simply taken the wear plate off because they know some consumers think its a deathtrap even if Petzl don't think that (regardless of who is right) so Petzl taking off the wear plate may not be an indication of what Petzl actually believe.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Petzl are removing the thin stainless steel plate because they have had complaints about it wearing out quickly and becoming dangerous.

I believe they added it for marketing reasons; it's looks high-tech. They also changed to a stainless steel cam for marketing reasons. The cam does not rust like the previous hardened carbon steel cam but it wears out in half the time and they have also had complaints about the quicker wearing cam.

They had not tested it to see what happens when it wears and they did not have the forsight to predict that it would become highly dangerous when the plate wore through. Worse than that, they failed to see the problem that the user cannot see the thickness of the plate and has no way of knowing when the plate gets thin. When people use a Croll with a thin plate they are in great danger and have no way of knowing. A thin plate can turn into a deadly knife quickly with no warning.

This is why I say that the B16BAA Croll was designed by marketing men and not by engineers. It is also not aimed at the tiny caving market but at the rope access market in which wear rates are much lower and at the rescue market in which wear rates are extremely low and gear is retired based on age not wear.

 

[Mark Wright]

The Croll with the stainless wear plate was never actually designed for the industrial market, it WAS designed for the caving market. Industry generally use the Top Croll chest harness which has a built in 4mm alloy Croll.

Petzl aren?t stopping production of the 3mm Croll, they are in fact manufacturing both types, 3mm to cater for people who prussik efficiently and the 4mm version for those who don?t.

Mark

 

[Cave_Troll]

I'm sure Mark W can correct me if i'm wrong, but I think most Petzl hard kit is now "indefinite lifespan subject to inspection"
so no.... rescue kit (hard) is not "replaced just on age so this is not a problem..."

 

[Simon Wilson]

I'm sure Mark W can correct me if i'm wrong, but I think most Petzl hard kit is now "indefinite lifespan subject to inspection"
so no.... rescue kit (hard) is not "replaced just on age so this is not a problem..."

Petzl don't determine when rescue kit is retired; the users decide and some users will have an age limit. In which case kit which sits in a bag and never used is likely to be retired on age. If it does fail an inspection it might fail on the grounds of corrosion - hence the stainless steel parts.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Petzl aren?t stopping production of the 3mm Croll, they are in fact manufacturing both types, 3mm to cater for people who prussik efficiently and the 4mm version for those who don?t.

Mark

Perhaps they have been left with old stock that they want to get rid of. Petzl will have to order large batches from the manufacturers in order to get them at such a cheap price.

It will be interesting to see which version of the Croll sells and if either version sells as well as the Camp Turbo or the Climbing Technology chest ascender.

 

[Tommy]

Petzl don't determine when rescue kit is retired; the users decide and some users will have an age limit.

So you're saying that Petzl manufactures kit with an inspection-based indefinite lifespan for all consumers, which they have secretly tailored to a market in which "some users will have an age limit" by including a specific planned obsolescence design feature?

This is for customer's with no kit life cycle agreement with Petzl.

Why would the users know better than the manufacturer as to when to replace kit?

It is the manufacturers that are regulated, and have the design and testing knowledge.
By and large the consumer population will simply have an opinion on the matter with little weight.
Yes some like to test their kit, but the science conducted by a man in a shed can only be so rigorous, no?

Nothing wrong with retiring kit early, it's just not as cost effective as adhering to the (very reasonable!) manufacturer's guidelines.


On the subject of overstock from the manufacturer, who manufactures Petzl's kit Simon?

 

[Tommy]

I know of a club which had a 'retire rope after 3 years' policy. This was left in place after the halcyon days of frequent expeditions and high club activity, when ropes were getting ragged.
This would have meant a lot of rope being discarded recently by the club had they not revised this in line with the more modern manufacturers guideline of 10 years or inspection failure.

The original guideline was implemented by a knowledgeable and competent group of users, self-regulating. It worked.
However, simply stating the manufacturer's guideline (with the inspection caveat) would have yielded the same, or better, effective rope life - not worse.

I believe in the past rope lifespans were quoted as being shorter, 5 years for some manufacturers?

 

[Simon Wilson]

Petzl don't determine when rescue kit is retired; the users decide and some users will have an age limit.

Why would the users know better than the manufacturer as to when to replace kit?

Nobody is saying they do but some users have a policy of replacing all kit after a certain length of time irrespective of what the manufacturers say.

On the subject of overstock from the manufacturer, who manufactures Petzl's kit Simon?

Parts and tooling are made by a large number of subcontractors.

 

[mikem]

There isn't a lifetime given to most hardware as it can be destroyed in a single use or last indefinitely, depending on what you do with it. If you look at Petzl's guidance it is all to do with possible damage & inspecting for it.

Mike

 

[Maj]

IIRC it wasn't that long ago that equipment manufactures changed their policy on lifespan of metal products from a limited number of years to no limited life. So perhaps some rescue organisations and clubs are still basing their policy prior to the change in manufactures advice. They may of course have decided to stick with a specific number of years or may be they haven't yet considered revising their policy as yet.
(Obviously not negating other reasons for removing kit from service).

Maj.

 

[Tommy]

Personal caving aside, in a club/rescue team environment logically, you can never go beyond the manufacturer's guideline as if anything went wrong you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
So retiring kit "in line with manufacturer's guideline or if an inspection (see document) is failed." is the most general way of putting it?

The inspection document can simply reference the manufacturer's inspection criteria, and if the club wishes to be more stringent, they have the choice to add criteria here.
Though I can only see a need for adding these if the group has a particular use case that wears the gear in a non-standard way. I can't think of any examples right now (at work), can anyone else?

 

[Tommy]

IIRC it wasn't that long ago that equipment manufactures changed their policy on lifespan of metal products from a limited number of years to no limited life. So perhaps some rescue organisations and clubs are still basing their policy prior to the change in manufactures advice. They may of course have decided to stick with a specific number of years or may be they haven't yet considered revising their policy as yet.
(Obviously not negating other reasons for removing kit from service).

Maj.

So I started climbing and caving somewhere between 6 and 4 years ago, and I seem to remember reading documents claiming 5 years or so (variable) lifespan at the start of my interest, so that fits. There would have been a lag in the documents scattered online form various sources catching up with the manufacturers, so it may have been longer ago.

 

[Mark Wright]

There?s been a wide range of advice over the years on equipment obsolescence
including 5 years from the date of manufacture, 5 years from the date of 1st use
and where we are now with 10 years from the date of manufacture for textiles. Petzl actually led the way with the current recommendations.

The 10 years is all about UV degradation which we don?t suffer too much down a cave.

I do most of my work these days in the marine industry and there are still some independent equipment examiners who retire both metal and textile items after 5 years. They then go on to sell more gear to the client when it?s perfectly OK.

Mark

 

[mikem]

DMM now say this:

Maximum Lifespan: Textile & Plastic Products ? 10 years from date of manufacture.
Metal Products ? no time limit.
Note: This may be as little as one use, or even earlier if damaged (e.g. in transit or
storage) prior to first use. For the product to remain in service it must pass a visual
and tactile inspection when considering the following criteria: fall arrest, general
wear, chemical contamination, corrosion, mechanical malfunction/ deformation,
cracks, loose rivets, loose strands of wire, frayed and/or bent wire, heat contamination
(over normal climatic conditions), cut stitching, frayed tape, degradation of tape
and/or thread, loose threads in tape, prolonged exposure to U.V., clear and readable
marking (e.g. marking, batch reference, individual serial numbers etc).
Where such products are permanently attached to other products in a system, please
refer to the manufacturer recommendations of the complete system.
17.2 Obsolescence: a product may become obsolete before the end of its lifespan.
Reasons for this may include changes in applicable standards, regulations, legislation,
development of new techniques, incompatibility with other equipment etc

Mike

 

[Mark Wright]

This is the most recent information on inspecting all Petzl ascender devices and shows the wear indicator on the wear plate on the Croll that was introduced in February this year.

This information is freely available for all products from the Petzl website.

https://www.petzl.com/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/068w00000069xTAAAY

Mark

 

[IanWalker]

The Croll with the stainless wear plate was never actually designed for the industrial market, it WAS designed for the caving market.

Petzl says this:
"CROLL? Chest ascender... Designed for rope access and rescue professionals, the CROLL chest rope clamp is very compact and lightweight. The rope channel is reinforced with stainless steel for greater durability"

https://www.petzl.com/INT/en/Professional/Rope-clamps/CROLL