royfellows
Well-known member
potholer said:
Sorry, but better idea still is to scrap it and continue manufacturing and selling the old one.
There was nothing wrong with it at all, it didn't need replacing.
The deadly croll
- Thread starter Leclused
- Start date
Sorry, but better idea still is to scrap it and continue manufacturing and selling the old one.
There was nothing wrong with it at all, it didn't need replacing.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
royfellows said:
I would rather have the smaller, lighter one, and just keep an eye on it... knowing me the moment my Croll first starts to slip I will get a new one long, long, long before most cavers would anyway.
Really?
Pegasus said:From the facebook post:
Two Crolls, produced in 2014 and used for the first time in August 2015. They did the same mileage.
Croll No 1 suddenly transformed into a razorblade during the ascension of 400 m of pits
superior wear
inferior wear
Croll No 1 Teeth wear after only 4000 m of rope (using foot ascender Pantin)
Croll NO 2 teeth wear after same mileage. Croll was already slipping too much to be used safely
CRoll No 2 inox plate wear. Who can tell when it will fail?
Rope damage caused by Croll No 1. Outher sheet cut entirely, even core damage
The idea of steel reinforcement to reduce frame wear (especially Pantin-induced frame wear) seems a good one, if it can be done such that any wear failures are graceful and obvious.
Entirely abandoning an idea because of what can happen in one implementation of it on well-worn devices seems like a way not to get much progress.
Entirely abandoning an idea because of what can happen in one implementation of it on well-worn devices seems like a way not to get much progress.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
mikem said:
If the teeth on my Croll looked even a third as bad as the Crolls (maybe half as bad) I would buy a new one. I may feel differently if I find myself replacing my Croll every 3-6 months, but that certainly isn't the case yet (been caving less than a year and mine still looks pretty much new)
You have inspired me to work out how much (vertical) mileage I have done though...
Disgusted from Cornwall.
New member
Mark Wright said:
Right. I think their gear is shit and you are deluded.
numb7rs
New member
Pegasus said:From the facebook post:
Two Crolls, produced in 2014 and used for the first time in August 2015. They did the same mileage.
[snip]
Croll No 1 Teeth wear after only 4000 m of rope (using foot ascender Pantin)
Croll NO 2 teeth wear after same mileage. Croll was already slipping too much to be used safely
...
To add more fuel to the fire, I would say that the user of Croll #1 has a particularly poor technique.
Looking at the teeth of each Croll in the picture above, although Croll #2 appears to be more worn in general, the wear on Croll #1 seems to be concentrated on the very front of the cam (top in these images). On Croll #2, a large number of the teeth have been blunted to varying degrees, but a tooth on the front edge of Croll #1 appears to have been worn down to the point that the body of the cam itself is showing wear. Based on the asymmetric wear on the teeth, it looks as though the rope has been drawn through Croll #1 at quite a severe angle, indicating that the pantin is not being used to pull the rope straight down. Instead the rope is drawn sharply forward as it exits the Croll, running the rope over the bottom inside edge, potentially with a significant amount of force, and so eroding the inside of the wear plate.
One might argue that this could be classed as improper use and/or lack of adequate training.
Disgusted from Cornwall. said:
[admin] DFC - UKC is a forum, where caving issues are discussed, all opinions are welcome providing they are expressed in a reasonable manner - if someone has a differing opinion to you by all means disagree with them, however, please don't insult them. Thank you, Pegasus[/admin]
Which teeth engage I find to be much more a matter of rope type - diameter and dirtiness and how swelled with water, etc. things that affect diameter and stretchiness. I would actually say it is rather normal to have asymetrical wear. You can check this yourself by noting how many teeth on your own system don't actually touch the rope, or don't touch it much.numb7rs said:Pegasus said:From the facebook post:
Two Crolls, produced in 2014 and used for the first time in August 2015. They did the same mileage.
[snip]
Croll No 1 Teeth wear after only 4000 m of rope (using foot ascender Pantin)
Croll NO 2 teeth wear after same mileage. Croll was already slipping too much to be used safely
...
To add more fuel to the fire, I would say that the user of Croll #1 has a particularly poor technique.
Looking at the teeth of each Croll in the picture above, although Croll #2 appears to be more worn in general, the wear on Croll #1 seems to be concentrated on the very front of the cam (top in these images). On Croll #2, a large number of the teeth have been blunted to varying degrees, but a tooth on the front edge of Croll #1 appears to have been worn down to the point that the body of the cam itself is showing wear. Based on the asymmetric wear on the teeth, it looks as though the rope has been drawn through Croll #1 at quite a severe angle, indicating that the pantin is not being used to pull the rope straight down. Instead the rope is drawn sharply forward as it exits the Croll, running the rope over the bottom inside edge, potentially with a significant amount of force, and so eroding the inside of the wear plate.
One might argue that this could be classed as improper use and/or lack of adequate training.
On every single ascender and brand I've ever owned and worn (CMI - both short and long handled upper jammer, ABC - chest, upper handled jammer, Hightec - "basic", and Petzl - upper handled, oldbasic used at knee on ropewalker, oldcroll used at chest, oldcroll used at foot on ropewalker) *EVERY SINGLE ONE* wears on the top way more than the lower. No matter the position, length of usage, etc. The top of the cam hits the rope first and if it is thicker rope, the middle and bottom don't engage much or at all. (I use primarly 11mm PMI pit rope, and 10mm PMI ezbend pit rope.)
I always have to retire from slippage when the top few rows wear out, because the rest just doesn't touch the rope to engage due to rope diameter. Sure, it will engage, but not enough/fully. Only ascenders in that list I've ever had to retire was the Hightec "basic", and a Petzl upper jammer. CMI handled did need cams replaced - but this is warrantied.
(I have been most happy with ABC overall - hard wearing and easy to downclimb but very grippy cams from strong spring)
The point was basically about wear typically caused by a Pantin (especially a Pantin being used on a foot that is somewhat forward) tending to pull a taut rope with ~1/2 bodyweight tension against the front frame, and hence preferentially wearing teeth on the front of the cam, as well as the frame.
It's possible that front-biased cam wear in some cases is also partly down to someone 'hanging back', rather than pulling themselves fully into the rope while standing, though in such cases, one may expect frame wear to be fairly top-biased, rather than an even groove.
Certainly, one might expect the top teeth on a cam to wear preferentially even on a chest ascender typically used on thinner ropes where the lower teeth are the ones which actually do most of the jamming work, as once someone is meaningfully moving upwards, it's still the top teeth the rope will largely be running against for much of the movement.
I do wonder if with Pantins, the auto-disengaging with the foot back does tend to nudge some people towards keeping the Pantin foot somewhat forwards?
It's nice that with the new Pantins, people who wish to can buy a catch to make it a locking device. It's certainly a matter of taste, but I found the 'foot-back-to'disengage' on the original Pantin a royal PITA, and rapidly sorted mine out so it didn't.
It's possible that front-biased cam wear in some cases is also partly down to someone 'hanging back', rather than pulling themselves fully into the rope while standing, though in such cases, one may expect frame wear to be fairly top-biased, rather than an even groove.
Certainly, one might expect the top teeth on a cam to wear preferentially even on a chest ascender typically used on thinner ropes where the lower teeth are the ones which actually do most of the jamming work, as once someone is meaningfully moving upwards, it's still the top teeth the rope will largely be running against for much of the movement.
I do wonder if with Pantins, the auto-disengaging with the foot back does tend to nudge some people towards keeping the Pantin foot somewhat forwards?
It's nice that with the new Pantins, people who wish to can buy a catch to make it a locking device. It's certainly a matter of taste, but I found the 'foot-back-to'disengage' on the original Pantin a royal PITA, and rapidly sorted mine out so it didn't.
Leclused
Active member
Hello,
Good news, the new Croll (2018 version) from petzl will no longer have the inox plate. I just saw the following pictures taken from the new petzl catalogue
https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23722562_10215021382077456_2554966209694851424_n.jpg?oh=e98830fe9ae0426f9aa69a7665fb998b&oe=5AA5E01F
Good news, the new Croll (2018 version) from petzl will no longer have the inox plate. I just saw the following pictures taken from the new petzl catalogue
https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23722562_10215021382077456_2554966209694851424_n.jpg?oh=e98830fe9ae0426f9aa69a7665fb998b&oe=5AA5E01F
Simon Wilson
New member
Why has it taken so long for them to dump that stupid wear plate? Why did they not do an immediate product recall when it was shown how dangerous it was and reports of very near misses started coming in. How many of those reports did they get and over what time period? I don't expect they will ever be open about it.
Has the UIAA done an investigation and why did they not withdraw the approval and issue a warning?
Petzl have gone back to a design which is hardly changed since Fernand Petzl invented the chest ascender. Turns out Fernand got it right in the first place - funny that. But then he was a proper engineer not a marketing man. Are you listening Petzl?
Has the UIAA done an investigation and why did they not withdraw the approval and issue a warning?
Petzl have gone back to a design which is hardly changed since Fernand Petzl invented the chest ascender. Turns out Fernand got it right in the first place - funny that. But then he was a proper engineer not a marketing man. Are you listening Petzl?
royfellows
Well-known member
Simon Wilson said:
reminds me of something else, but wont say
Simon Wilson
New member
I said to Petzl in January 2016 that the wear plate was extremely dangerous and that I thought that a recall of all the 2013 model Crolls was the appropriate action. They claimed that they were perfectly safe. Now they have dumped the wear plate which I see as an admission that it is a bad design. How many people are now going to feel uneasy about using the wear plate Croll and will buy the new version and how will those people feel about the actions of Petzl?
Petzl should go further, do the right thing, openly admit that it is dangerous and recall it. I call on them again to recall it before it kills somebody.
Petzl should go further, do the right thing, openly admit that it is dangerous and recall it. I call on them again to recall it before it kills somebody.
Simon Wilson
New member
tamarmole said:
It's already the cheapest chest ascender on the market apart from the other cheap far eastern ones. I say 'other' because I suspect that many Petzl products are not made in France.
The new one will almost certainly be cheaper still. Petzl seem to be going for low price at least with the Croll. I think most people will choose to pay a few quid more and get either the Camp Turbo or the CT which are both more sophisticated designs and both better. The marketing men seem to be in charge at Petzl and they have screwed up with the Croll.
