holdatcharlie

As someone who has worked in advertising a long time I will be interested to see how Petzl manage the relaunch ZZ and try to dig themselves out of the hole they've dug for themselves. Normally a relaunch is an opportunity to revive sales of an existing product by adding some new features and would be launched with some fanfare. Unfortunately Petzl don't have that luxury. So, how do you relaunch a product that had such an embarrassing start and such a short period on sale? If you big up the 'new and improved' it only revives the initial shortcomings. And you can't launch it like: 'sorry about the first one - hope this one works better'. I think it will be a quiet, low-key affair with a banner on their website stating that the Mk2 is now on sale. How would you want it relaunched Jonesie? It must have hurt dealers like you. I'll understand if you don't answer that. On a more positive note, I wonder when/if climbers will get prototypes to test in 'real life' work situations.

I wonder if this is how Petzl started with the concept? Bolting their ZZ bit on to an HC. Then re-inventing the wheel by designing their own pulley/anchor to avoid any patents?

Pete. Sorry if it comes across like that. I was fascinated by the whole zigzag episode. I am sorry it failed but also concerned that it got that far without the shortcomings becoming apparent. Particularly as it came from Petzl and was preceded with so much fanfare. I was also shocked that many posters were happy to believe that the first zigzag failure was an elaborate scam to discredit Petzl. Many were happy to carry on using them even adding all sorts of 'back-up' systems to give them better peace of mind. Even after the withdrawl! My 'fixation' with accreditation just reflects many of the comments I read on here. I get confused about certain principles. Here we have members creating interesting equipment with your (and others) encouragement. Yet other posts warn about buying e2e prusiks off ebay - because they have no certification. And when I posted inquiring if anyone had a second-hand harness they wanted to sell I was advised to buy new - 'it's the only way you will know that it is safe'. Seems some times things are 'PC' and sometimes there not. Just my thoughts. Maybe I should just read.

...as I guess mods like this would invalidate any DMM warranty or HC certificate. Even though you are looking like creating something that is potentially better than either system (HC and ZZ) in their original guise.

One question I would like answered - and I guess no-one had the time to find out the answer before it was withdrawn - is: how does this element of the ZZ cope with a side impact? Say you are hanging on it, line is locked, mechanical prusik is fully extended; and you swing into a 4"-6" limb which strikes the side of the device? Does it bend? If so, does it bend back or stay bent? It looks (to me) the same principle as the chain on your saw - which is designed to bend in one axis - but not the other (cross) axis. Anyone have any thoughts/experience on that?

The thing is no-one got the chance to do long-term tests with the ZZ. It may get 'sloppy' after extended use.

OK the jury might be out on the loler question. It still works out at a very expensive bit of kit. Why not get your money back and wait for ZZ2? Or are you maybe suggesting Petzl team up with DMM? It would be ironic if someone came up with a rig that was better than the zigzag before next Jan!

Are these just academic exercises or do you propose using them bearing in mind that they won't get lolered? Isn't it a bit expensive sacrificing the refund to cobble these together. BTW - instead of the metal ziggyzag bit have you tried it with a bit of friction rope.

I've used them. Very good. Any splicing will be done by a person - so can vary. If you want consistency get sewn - done by a machine - just like a Petzl ZigZag.

dan's videos are always helpful. here is his Cambium saver how-to: http://www.climbingarborist.com/cambiumsaver.html I have a Stein cambium but the small ring is too small to get a stitched eye through. So makes repositioning a bit more difficult. I have to feed the none-eye end through the big ring first so that I can at least unclip the eye from my HC and take it out the big ring (leaving the small ring on the rope) to move it.

So there we have. Total recall. It's a big shame that someone has cocked up along the line and tarnished the reputation of, what looks like, a nice piece of kit. Not to mention the damage that has been done to Petzl's reputation. I hope they don't rush things too much. I hope they don't just focus only on the top connection. This product was only in use for about a month so nobody had time judge the long-term strength/reliability of the whole thing. There are a lot of moving parts in it. What about the actual ziggy-zaggy part? How will it stand up to cold, rain, dust, resin etc? And how will it stand up to side loading? From what I can see the mechanism only applies friction along one axis. What if you swing into a branch and bang it from the side. Will it absorb the impact or will it need to be straightened. Will the links loosen? This is quite different to a rope which applies friction through 360 deg., is very supple and a great shock absorber. I hope they let some hooligans test it to destruction (under controlled conditions of course). Pushing it way beyond its normal operating limits. I haven't designed anything like this but I have designed software and websites - and one thing I learned is that people do weird things that you never thought of when you were doing all your testing and creating all your error messages! Petzl will also be hoping that no one sneaks in with a better product before Jan 2014.

Mods. Does this ZigZag debacle and this latest news warrant a sticky!

Re. The strength of the connectors on a ZZ. The ZZ is, in essence, a replacement for the pulley and friction cord in a Hitch Climber system. Now I haven't handled a ZZ but it doesn't look as reassuring to clip onto as the two side plates on hitch climber pulley.

I think Jonesie is in an unenviable position. He cannot promise anything without direction from Petzl. He is in their hands. And Petzl will obviously do anything to avoid a recall or give money back. They are frantically trying to rescue this mess. I suspect they are putting a lot of effort into working on some retrofit device to retain the krab in the 'correct' orientation. That would be the quickest and least costlly get-out. That will go to the dealers and thence to their ZZ customers. If I'm right will people you ZZ be happy with that? Will the top connector still be strong enough long-term!

Petzl website says: 1 - As a measure of precaution, we ask that you stop using your ZIGZAG mechanical Prusik. 2 - This stoppage will remains in place until we have approved and communicated an appropriate solution to maximize the safety of ZIGZAG users. 3 - We have decided to stop sales of ZIGZAG mechanical Prusiks. 4 - While there currently may be several solutions to maintain the upper carabiner correctly oriented on its major axis, Petzl cannot presently guarantee their effectiveness in all circumstances because we have not tested them sufficiently. 5 - Our teams are mobilized to quickly develop and verify a solution specifically for the ZIGZAG to maintain the upper carabiner oriented on its major axis. 6 - The availability of this solution will be communicated on Headlamps, gear and technical advice for mountain sports, rescue and work at height | Petzl by May 22, 2013 at the latest. So until then they are just hoping you will see some warning and use common sense!

If you had carried on using a ZZ it might have been anything but 'boring'. The thing about this type of product - unlike (say) updating to the latest Windows operating system - which, if it isn't perfect, you will receive an automatic online update and be slightly inconvenienced. With a product like the ZZ your life hangs by it! Literally.

That is a very generous attitude! I for one don't like the idea of testing a 'new' product. Surely every product used in climbing needs to super-safe from the get-go. And you can't always blindly trust large companies or organisations to do the right thing under heavy commercial pressure. Remember the Challenger shuttle disaster. A major organisation (NASA) authorizes the use of a component (the solid booster rocket) in a way it shouldn't be used (outside its o-rings operating temperature range). And they were warned! This will be a logistics nightmare for Petzl. If they have to recall they will have to try to get EVERY SINGLE ONE back. Any left 'in use' could potentially cause a fatal accident. I know there will be lots of small print on on the instructions absolving Petzl from responsibility for accidents due to inappropriate use. But I don't think any of us would deliberately cross-load a karabiner. No-one signed a waiver form when they used it - did they? The dealers will be hit by this debacle too. But I guess they will get some compensation and support in any recall programme.

It shows that leverage, like friction, can be your friend or your enemy! This is a major commercial embarrassment for Petz and could be very expensivel But they had no alternative. If they had dithered it could have been much worse. I can't see there being an easy retrofit so the only option is a total recall and an eventual replacement with a ZZ2. I suspect though, for many climbers, the allure of a ZZ may have dulled somewhat.

Surely the point is - climbers shouldn't be having to think of taking extra precautions to use a piece of gear. You want that extra security built in. After all this is not a minimalist, extreme sport for Frenchmen who climb overhangs with just a bandanna and a bag of chalk. This should be a serious bit of professional kit. Built to compensate for a degree of misuse or unusual circumstances. You want to climb with 'rugged' gear - not manby-panby extra lightweight stuff. You want to be up there with Bruce Springsteen - not Justin Bieber (no offence Justin)! Looking at the pic with the bent connector - that product is now rodgered. You wouldn't want to put that in the vice and re-use - would you? It would be more comforting if that component was more substantial and contoured. And, as you lose your balance and slip off a limb, the last thing you want to be doing is looking up to check whether the krab is properly aligned before the rope (hopefully) goes tight! Heaven forbid someone gets seriously injured from a ZZ failure - do you think the Petzl design engineer will have a clear conscience and that the climber was to blame because he didn't use it EXACTLY as the instructions recommend. OK the climber in Germany sounds as though he was being a bit 'boisterous' but I doubt 'reckless'.

What is the likely next step from Petzl? Total product recall? I guess you guys with ZZs wouldn't mind that if you got an 'over-engineered' replacement. Although they obviously can't re-design and manufacture replacements anytime soon. Looks a potential mess from their perspective - particularly after such pre-launch hype. Maybe the friction hitch won't become extinct after all.

I think I would only use it when climbing big, long main laterals without foot or hand holds. I don't have spikes so it would be nice to have the addition of a back anchor as a stablilizer to help prevent rotation around the limb.

So what is the technique to tie in at the back? Reverse your lanyard (so its at the back) and then connect that to your climbing/restraining line?

As a humble rec climber, these pics prompt me to ask what is the best (safest) technique for working when leaning forward? Most harnesses (excluding full fall-arrest types) are designed with the bridge etc. for perpendicular working or leaning back - what's the technique for tying-in from the back.

Have you tried the Michococan, Michcoan, Mich.. Martin? Good transition from Blakes. Its a closed version.

Have seen the Marlow vids? Splicing Home Page