broken ring and funny world

Some good friends of mine own a small climbing supply store here in Portland, mostly geared toward rock climbers, alpinists, etc. They yanked a box or so of these rings after the recall effort which SHERRILL spearheaded. The Sherrill folks were the ones who contacted them and supplied them with all the info. I don't think they ever even heard from Kong about this.

It's disturbing to me that Kong seems to not be standing behind their products. Making life support gear, you have to always take responsibility for the things you manufacture. It's harder to make the argument that retailers should be responsible, although I do know that many retailers (including my friends' store) send out a small percentage of gear they receive to be tested. They do this even though (obviously) it eats into their profits.

Do you ever wonder what the 'individually tested' stamp on petzl and some other gear means? It means that in addition to taking random samples from every batch and breaking them, EACH PIECE is pulled to something like 1/10 of its minimum breaking strength before it leaves the factory. If you ever see small nicks or scratches on brand new petzl carabiners, this is why.

Hard to imagine this happening if those Kong rings were individually tested.
 
Re: Here\'s what I wrote to Kong

What a fabulous surprise to see all these thoughtful & passionate and oftern beautifully crafted contributions to the thread after a few days of being away from the Buzz!

I am so surprised to see Kong's reaction to all this. It's one thing to see them seeming to shoot themselves in the foot but to then move on to the other foot and progress up both legs? I can't help wondering where they are headed with all this.

They don't even have to admit liability to do a cheap decent thing and start on the road to restoring our faith that there is some remnant of decency lurking beneath all the bluster.

My understanding of our competition events is that they are mostly designed to simulate routine aspects of a routine work situation. It's not like we hook up tractors for a tug of war with a climbing harness in the middle.

Pete
 
Re: Here\'s what I wrote to Kong

As I stated in my letter to KONG, " how competing could be harder on the ring than work is baffling...in work-mode, we have chainsaws, sometimes BIG ones hanging from us, lots more rigging gear and more ropes...how could a comp, where you have none of this be harder on the ring???? Ludicrous..."
 
Re: Here\'s what I wrote to Kong

Yep, that's just a quickie legal excuse. Using the word 'competition' raises doubts in people's heads cuz they think auto racing or ski jumping.

It's fairly easy to demonstrate with the TCC rules that unusual forces will get points deducted or even DQ the climber. That it was in competition isn't relevant.

This is the cool thing about the net. When one voice is drowned out by a table full of suits and lawyers, we can get together and make that voice heard. It's about time customers started getting some preference over stockholders.

I say post this on rescue, caving, rock climbing and roped access fora any chjance you get. It may not get much traction but it's worth making all the gear manufacturers know that unreliable gear is INTOLERABLE.

Not one single piece of hardware should leave a manufacturer unless it's been proof loaded. We don't want to do their testing for them at the risk of our lives.
 
Re: Kong Sux

I am the chief purchasing agent for Limbwalker and can tell you for sure, I will never support Kong or their products after I have seen the way they have treated an honorable man with a real complaint about their products. The letter from Kong earlier in this thread where they deny their involvement then threaten with a liable suit, makes me hate them even more.

Jay Butcher Rules.... Kong drools.
 
Re: Kong Sux

We need Ron and Jay to get together and make a video complaint and put it on Youtube. We then could really get some momentum on this...

Sorry to volunteer you Ron. Are you busy?
thinking.gif
 
I was wondering about my Buckingham saddle rings. I climb in a Glide II-- http://www.baileysonline.com/itemdetail.asp?item=16902%20SM&utm_source=base&utm_medium=cse.

What do we know about other used that may not have been recalled, and how do we find out more. I didn't get around to calling Buckingham today.

I was looking at my rope bridge yesterday, too. Wondering how I could check the internal condition when the rope cover is lock stitched over the Amsteel bridge. I felt it for any irregularities. It is a little flatter in the one dimension that the other, which is from the 'biners running along it.

What saddles might have these rings sewn into them?
 
Sean, replace that bridge if it's approaching a year old. Mine felt solid and consistent one day and BOTH elements parted the next. It was 20 months old. Mine was Vectran and Jeremy's was Technora, both looked the same, they tapered down to a mushy, tatty break and didn't even resemble the original cordage.

I'm thinking bridge duty is TOUGH on rope, the forces are pretty extreme in terms of tension and compression cycling. No more jacketed bridges for me... although I can thank that kernmantle jacket for saving my , it was the only thing holding my weight for a long footlock.
 
Spoke to Jim at Buckingham. Thought that this would be reassuring to you all. I bought my Buck Glide II in part because it is made in America. He indicated to me that the rings are made onsite at their facility. Below is the cut and pasted message from Jim.

MEMO



TO: Buckingham Customers



From: James Pennefeather, VP of Sales & Marketing; Buckingham Mfg. Co. Inc.



DATE: September 3, 2009



Subject: Buckingham Aluminum Rings



Our Customer Service personnel has been receiving a high volume of telephone calls questioning whether we have been experiencing problems with our aluminum rings similar to the breakage issues being experienced by another manufacturer.

We felt it best to address this issue and are pleased to inform our customer’s that Buckingham has not experienced any product issues, breakage or otherwise, with the aluminum rings we utilize in the manufacture of our product, today or in at least the past ten years that we have been producing the same. Buckingham produces this component to our specifications and random sample tests each lot for visual characteristics, dimension, correct material, hardness and breaking strength. To enhance wear characteristics, our aluminum rings are hard coat anodized.

There are no markings on the Buckingham aluminum rings, thus eliminating the potential of creating a stress riser in the component that can lead to potential fracture. Products such as the Friction Saver, Body Belt, Two In One Lanyard, etc. that utilize this component are labeled to identify Buckingham as the product manufacturer.

Buckingham and various standards applicable to the product we manufacture, require users/employers to continuously inspect safety equipment. Components such as the aluminum ring, steel ring, etc. must be inspected for at least but not limited to, cracks, nicks, distortion, corrosion or excessive abrasion, which if found, is cause for removal from further use and product replacement.

Please contact Buckingham Customer Service should you have questions regarding the aforementioned or the product we market.
 
sorry for the lack of availability multiple people in my family are having seriuos health issues.i'll do my best to check back soon as it seems that the issue regarding my grandfather looks to be coming to and end sooner than later.life doesn't take long to put things into perspective.thanks for all the support.
 
it's just a buncha BS that kong would even have the nerve to say if there was an unmarked ring in the box it means it is a rejected ring and jay is at fault for using it. what the hell kinda of quality control is that. our fricking lives are on the line's here.(pun intended)
if they sell life support equipment they should have better control of what leaves the factory
furious3.gif
 
I am a Danish arborist, putting my life in the hands of climbing gear manufacturers 5 days a week, and who do climbing comps as well.
In the future I will never trust Kong equipment again! Just the fact, that they state their climbing gear isn't supposed to be used in a climbing competition is so rude and arrogant, that I will never ever trust their gear again! And it gets even worse, when they say, that they do not hold any responsibility for gear, produced by another company, but sold under Kongs name. That is outrageous!
I will send them an email and tell them, that Kong products will not be used in my company, and that I will spread the word to all the climbers I know - throughout the world.

Be safe out there!
 
Kong doesn't cover it's gear used in competition?

I wonder who else does or doesn't?

I'm thinking no more Kong gear at TCCs since the manufacturer doesn't trust their own gear in that application.

SERIOUSLY, that will hit them where it hurts,
BAN KONG from TCCs. Most new innovation with gear is the result of TCCs. Ban Kong and their crappy gear will get a LOT less exposure and put less climbers at risk.

BAN KONG FROM TCCs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom