The deadly croll
- Thread starter Leclused
- Start date
nickwilliams
Well-known member
Can't read it unless you are a Facebook member. No use to me.
Mr Mike
Active member
Copy from the page:
Few cavers were waiting for the ?new? Petzl Croll and the past years it has become clear that this equipment is a big step back: it is too small, the body material is too thin, the teeth wear quicker than the old models (probably because of a weaker spring), it is a lot resistant (only 140 kilograms) and so on. But the past months we have seen reports of a more severe problem that could kill people!
We have now experienced it also, during the annual Anialarra expedition.
During the climbing of the 400 m of pits of AN51 cave, a caver got suddenly stuck in the rope with his Croll. The inox plate had been worn by the rope and suddenly transformed into a vertical razor sharp knife.
The rope was a brand new Edelrid 9 mm superstatic rope and it has been put in the cave only a few hours before. So much to our anger, our new rope was damaged after only TWO people passing over it!
No-one got hurt but the rope was damaged at one spot, and severely damaged ? nearly cut through ? 10 m higher. Every caver knows that a thin rope like a 9 mm under tension can be cut without any effort at all. The Petzl Croll nearly did that.
Some facts: the Croll was made in 2014 and used for the first time in august 2015. We can quite precisely calculate that it has been used to climb 4000 m of pits on non-muddy ropes.
The scariest thing is that it is impossible to predict when the inox plate will be cut through by the wear of the rope. By coincidence, I had replaced my Croll also at the same time as my compagnon, in August 2015. So we had two 2014 models that had +/- done the same length of ropes. My Croll had been already put aside since it started slipping (though only 5 out of 33 teeth were worn!!). The inox plate showed some wear but nothing really frightening. However, we now know that it could cut through at any given moment during an ascension. It is just impossible to predict.
@ Petzl company: we strongly ask you to revise the design of this equipment.
a) It wears too quickly: a Croll only surviving 4000 m of rope is a laugh. With the old models we did 3-4 times as much.
b) The inox plate is an extremely dangerous addition. This plate is way too thin. It should be 2-3 times as thick, in a way that it will never wear through and transform into a knife. If you make it 1-2 mm thick, then the teeth of the Croll will be worn a long time before.
c) The Croll is not adapted to the modern way of climbing, using a foot clamp (Pantin). The upper teeth wear very fast.
Please make us a device that can be used for many years in a row instead of one season as the actual one. Please make a device that never ever transform into a knife since knives and ropes are like water and fire. My suggestion: make the body out of solid inox. OK it will be a bit heavier but we don?t care about an extra 50 grams. Safety is at stake.
Few cavers were waiting for the ?new? Petzl Croll and the past years it has become clear that this equipment is a big step back: it is too small, the body material is too thin, the teeth wear quicker than the old models (probably because of a weaker spring), it is a lot resistant (only 140 kilograms) and so on. But the past months we have seen reports of a more severe problem that could kill people!
We have now experienced it also, during the annual Anialarra expedition.
During the climbing of the 400 m of pits of AN51 cave, a caver got suddenly stuck in the rope with his Croll. The inox plate had been worn by the rope and suddenly transformed into a vertical razor sharp knife.
The rope was a brand new Edelrid 9 mm superstatic rope and it has been put in the cave only a few hours before. So much to our anger, our new rope was damaged after only TWO people passing over it!
No-one got hurt but the rope was damaged at one spot, and severely damaged ? nearly cut through ? 10 m higher. Every caver knows that a thin rope like a 9 mm under tension can be cut without any effort at all. The Petzl Croll nearly did that.
Some facts: the Croll was made in 2014 and used for the first time in august 2015. We can quite precisely calculate that it has been used to climb 4000 m of pits on non-muddy ropes.
The scariest thing is that it is impossible to predict when the inox plate will be cut through by the wear of the rope. By coincidence, I had replaced my Croll also at the same time as my compagnon, in August 2015. So we had two 2014 models that had +/- done the same length of ropes. My Croll had been already put aside since it started slipping (though only 5 out of 33 teeth were worn!!). The inox plate showed some wear but nothing really frightening. However, we now know that it could cut through at any given moment during an ascension. It is just impossible to predict.
@ Petzl company: we strongly ask you to revise the design of this equipment.
a) It wears too quickly: a Croll only surviving 4000 m of rope is a laugh. With the old models we did 3-4 times as much.
b) The inox plate is an extremely dangerous addition. This plate is way too thin. It should be 2-3 times as thick, in a way that it will never wear through and transform into a knife. If you make it 1-2 mm thick, then the teeth of the Croll will be worn a long time before.
c) The Croll is not adapted to the modern way of climbing, using a foot clamp (Pantin). The upper teeth wear very fast.
Please make us a device that can be used for many years in a row instead of one season as the actual one. Please make a device that never ever transform into a knife since knives and ropes are like water and fire. My suggestion: make the body out of solid inox. OK it will be a bit heavier but we don?t care about an extra 50 grams. Safety is at stake.
royfellows
Well-known member
Mike, hope you are well, long time no see.
Can you copy this to aditnow please.
Can you copy this to aditnow please.
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
Please note the above photos had to be replaced from photobucket links to our webserver links - apologies if I have got the order incorrect, Pegasus
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
Please note the above photos had to be replaced from photobucket links to our webserver links - apologies if I have got the order incorrect, Pegasus
pwhole
Well-known member
I binned my Croll after about a year's usage, as the teeth had worn flat, as shown above, the attachment hole to the D-maillon had melted down to only 4mm left, and I was sick of getting the release catch stuck in the rest of my hardware and being unable to open it, as the device was fundamentally just too small for the job. Strangely, despite always using a Pantin, I haven't experienced any wear on the Inox plate - or not uneven wear at least. I hadn't worried about that aspect, but I was just sick of using it. So now the only Petzl device in my kit is the Pantin.
Although the TurboChest is smaller still, the release catch is much higher, and with a tag of cord, shouldn't get jammed at all - I'm willing to try one next, but at present my 'normal', chunky CT chest ascender is doing just fine.
Although the TurboChest is smaller still, the release catch is much higher, and with a tag of cord, shouldn't get jammed at all - I'm willing to try one next, but at present my 'normal', chunky CT chest ascender is doing just fine.
Simon Wilson
New member
Pitlamp said:
I have been in correspondence with Petzl about this since January and I have been extremely disappointed with their replies. They have repeatedly blamed me and the others who have experienced the same failure for not inspecting the Croll often enough. I have repeatedly told them that it is impossible to inspect the Croll effectively because it is impossible to see how thin the so-called wear plate is. I have said that the plate can develop a hole during a single caving trip and they have rejected what I say.
Whilst I think we would all concede that the "average" caver / mine explorer will try to eke out kit as long as possible; possibly longer than the manufacturer's recommendation, this does not alter the fact that the failure mode on the wear plate is potentially lethal.
Having looked at the info on the Petzl website it would appear that Petzl are aware that Crolls used in real world situations have been worn to knife edges on a number of occasions. Surely a responsible and proactive manufacturer like Petzl should be actively responding to this sort of feedback from users and be designing kit which reflects real world use patterns.
Having looked at the info on the Petzl website it would appear that Petzl are aware that Crolls used in real world situations have been worn to knife edges on a number of occasions. Surely a responsible and proactive manufacturer like Petzl should be actively responding to this sort of feedback from users and be designing kit which reflects real world use patterns.
pwhole
Well-known member
If they only test their kit in floodlit pixie-caves of pristine quality, then they're not going to get realistic results. Field-testing should include the worst possible circumstances, which must include at a minimum, thick mud and grit, as that's what we have to deal with on a regular basis. If their response is as Simon reports, then they're not doing their jobs properly and deserve to lose the business.
tamarmole said:
A responsible and proactive manufacturer like Petzl used to be would have responded accordingly. However in the days of corporate accountants, cost reduction and managing risk, I doubt you'll see the response you would expect.
Only thing that can be done is to share this info as much as possible and not buy their products.
