Black Diamond Factors - BOOOO!

[summitmtn420]

DSide-- didn't you see that the if you had tight pants and skied like a sally in the back seat you "need not apply." The boot was made for 30 ft to hard pack hucking-- I think your tight ass pants, back seat sally, overall gay skiing is what made these boots destroy themselves to save them the embarasment of being on your feet

You must just have to step it up bro! You also should probably start skiing some real terrain and leave that CB crap for the first timers





Good luck w/ the fixes (tell BD you will product test for a nominal fee)--

[bean]

The part is bent sideways. Probably means torqued in the same direction. That suggests it's less likely to break from someone getting in the back seat than from twisting to the side. Maybe landing off-balance. Yes, it's obviously a design blunder and BD should be embarrassed.

It looks more to me like a hard front-seat landing would cause that failure. Think about it, in a failure like that the most likely scenario is that only one side would fail at a time, so the upward pull will result in that twist. I think BD needs to come up with a replacement for this thing and send parts out to everyone who owns a pair.

(I'm an enginerd and friggin' loved failure analysis when I was in school)

[srsosbso]

(I'm an enginerd and friggin' loved failure analysis when I was in school)

100 to 1 you were NOT taught to tell the user NOT to send the part that failed in for analysis.

[bean]

100 to 1 you were NOT taught to tell the user NOT to send the part that failed in for analysis.

I'm an enginerd, not a customer service guy

But if something failed I would want my hands on it so I could inspect it as much as I wanted. That is, unless I already knew what the problem was and had seen it several times already.

[srsosbso]

if something failed I would want my hands on it... unless I already knew what the problem was and had seen it several times already.

The chap on the phone said that he has never heard of this happening

Their decline to have the piece sent in just doesn't add up does it.

Somebody back there said the piece looked cast instead of milled. Maybe that's the problem? I hope they get the piece made properly and send a pair out to everyone instead of waiting for them to break, perhaps in some really inconvenient or even dangerous situation.

[likwid]

Their decline to have the piece sent in just doesn't add up does it.

Somebody back there said the piece looked cast instead of milled. Maybe that's the problem? I hope they get the piece made properly and send a pair out to everyone instead of waiting for them to break, perhaps in some really inconvenient or even dangerous situation.

That wasn't cast or milled.
It was stamped.

[srsosbso]

Maybe if BD doesn't step up to the plate on this, some Magola could arrange to have some identical pieces cnc'd (that would be stronger than stamped, yes?) to sell on here. While they are at it, maybe they could increase the range in touring mode (if the same piece is responsible for the limited rearward motion.)

Don't look at me, I don't know shit about metallurgy...

[bean]

I think the main issue is that there simply isn't enough material holding it together where the hole is punched.

[srsosbso]

Looking at the pics, it's interesting that one side failed rather than both. It looks like a tensile failure (I don't know where people came up with the 'you must be in the back seat" idea, as it looks to me like quite the opposite- that driving hard or, more likely, landing a drop and flexing down/forwards, exceeded the tensile strength of that piece.)

So I am wondering if the design failure was assuming that the two sides of that piece (ie. on either side of the hole) would share any tensile load between them, and the dimensions of the piece were determined accordingly. And then, in reality, because of a bit of shear or canting or twist or driving the knee inside or otherwise assymetrical loading, one side gets all the load and fails.

OR the piece was designed to be made of stronger material than whatever the chinese factory came up with.

[bean]

Looking at the pics, it's interesting that one side failed rather than both. It looks like a tensile failure (I don't know where people came up with the 'you must be in the back seat" idea, as it looks to me like quite the opposite- that driving hard or, more likely, landing a drop and flexing down/forwards, exceeded the tensile strength of that piece.)

So I am wondering if the design failure was assuming that the two sides of that piece (ie. on either side of the hole) would share any tensile load between them, and the dimensions of the piece were determined accordingly. And then, in reality, because of a bit of shear or canting or twist or driving the knee inside or otherwise assymetrical loading, one side gets all the load and fails.

OR the piece was designed to be made of stronger material than whatever the chinese factory came up with.

It's highly unlikely that both sides would fail together. Due to natural variations one side will be stronger than the other, even in perfect loading (this is invariable, and the difference will be very small if constructed properly - also the loading won't be perfectly symmetrical not necessarily to user "error" but again due to natural variations) but as soon as one side fails, the tensile stress will be relieved from the other side as it bends.

I think BD needs to make up some stronger parts and get them out to owners ASAP.

I'd love to get a better look at how some of the buckles are failing.

[srsosbso]

Interesting. Thanks for explaining that.

I too hope they got on this and send out a better made piece. Getting little gizmos like that made costs very little when done on a massive scale.

[wilcox510]

srsosbso - The metal piece is not what limits the touring mode. Its the plastic of the cuff of the shell itself (and to some extent the black plastic piece on the tour mode switch). You can get more tour mode range of motion if you grind away at the shell. See this post...
http://www.tetonat.com/archives/607/...iamond-factor/

[Hugh Conway]

hugh's mom has a hole like that, but she didn't break last night

Dobish has an asshole like that. Too bad he broke it last night being bent over by bent gate

[flyby]

am i the only one who thinks that thing looks like a zipper?

[kidwoo]

am i the only one who thinks that thing looks like a zipper?

I was thinking popsicle stick with a secret bonus flavor compartment.

[Burrrr]

Dobish has an asshole like that. Too bad he broke it last night being bent over by bent gate

Looks like Hugh needs to get a hole for a girlfriend himself. +3,000 post in 13 months. Dont you have a job son! Get a life...

[Spark]

Was thinking of getting the Black Diamond Shiva AT boots but now am more hesitant to do so because of the problems people have had.

It was a tough call between this boot and the Scarpa Domina. I was leaning towards the Domina's and this thread helped me finally pulled the trigger on the Scarpa's, stoked!

[altagirl]

I bought the Shivas. Not that we've had conditions to let me try them out yet... but the fit is SO much better than any other boot I've ever tried, I'll deal with it. Plus, it shouldn't be hard to fix if it does break.

[Spark]

I bought the Shivas. Not that we've had conditions to let me try them out yet... but the fit is SO much better than any other boot I've ever tried, I'll deal with it. Plus, it shouldn't be hard to fix if it does break.

I also found it very hard to figure out what size to go with the Shiva's. I had been told the Shiva's don't pack down as much compared to other liners. The 25's fit perfect but the 24.5 felt just way to tight/snug, and was unsure how much they would pack out with molding.

Also, I don't know about other places but there is a serious shortage of AT boots in and around Vancouver.

I've tried on pretty much every women's AT boot and the Shiva's and Domina's definitely fit the best.

I'll let you know how the Domina's pan out.

[Black Diamond]

Black Diamond here:

Here’s the lowdown on the walk/ski mechanism in Factor boots.

1—The ski/walk mechanism currently is our #1 warranty issue, registering in at 0.8% of boots made. Not all boots are on the snow, so this number is a bit skewed, but it remains a clear concern with the boots and we are taking this very seriously as 0.8% is too much if this happens to you. Both personally as skiers and professionally we are 100% committed to these boots as they answer the need in the marketplace for a powerful, performance based freeride boot. Our in-house, SLC based testing of the BD boot line makes them the most thoroughly tested boot from a Quality Assurance Quality Control standpoint more so than any other new boot on the market. That said breakage of a handful of the walk/ski mechanisms proves it is not a perfect boot – no boot ever is - a fact we live with everyday as design evolution and process control mandates constant improvements to meet changing consumer and market demand.

2— What we have found is that there are some material inconsistencies in the production batch of this die-cast mechanism that we did not have in pre-production or sales samples in the previous two years. Such that if the process does not yield a perfect part that one normally strives for, the design variance allowable is too slim. What this means is if you have a good one, you’ve got a good one and within reason it will not break. If you received a bad one, it could be prone to break.

3--As soon as we saw the reoccurrence of this issue we jumped on the investigation immediately and have made the necessary changes to improve the integrity and consistency. All boots next year will have this update, and any boot that breaks this year can also get this new part by the end of January when we have finalized our field tests and received production units. Warranty exchange of this part until end of January is replaced with the current level of production parts which could again be suspect based on the same quality variance but it's not pandemic and only a small percentage. But which goes again back to –if you’ve got a good one, you should be fine and this should not be of concern. But going forwards, we’ve taken the steps to eliminate this possibility.

Sorry to any of you who have broken this piece, thanks for your patience and we’ll see you out on the hill.

BD

[srsosbso]

Helpful and reassuring. Thanks for that.

[wardog]

I bought a new BD shovel a few years ago. It was impossible to mount the blade on the shaft -- I mean totally impossible. I did some filing here and there and got it working. I phoned BD and told them about it and they said they never heard of such a thing and it must have been an anomaly.

[JONG SLAUGHTER]

I phoned BD and told them about it and they said they never heard of such a thing and it must have been an anomaly.

YOU MEAN LIKE THAT ONE TIME YOU HAD SEX WITH A GIRL?

[djc]

Black Diamond here:

Here’s the lowdown on the walk/ski mechanism in Factor boots.

1—The ski/walk mechanism currently is our #1 warranty issue, registering in at 0.8% of boots made. Not all boots are on the snow, so this number is a bit skewed, but it remains a clear concern with the boots and we are taking this very seriously as 0.8% is too much if this happens to you. Both personally as skiers and professionally we are 100% committed to these boots as they answer the need in the marketplace for a powerful, performance based freeride boot. Our in-house, SLC based testing of the BD boot line makes them the most thoroughly tested boot from a Quality Assurance Quality Control standpoint more so than any other new boot on the market. That said breakage of a handful of the walk/ski mechanisms proves it is not a perfect boot – no boot ever is - a fact we live with everyday as design evolution and process control mandates constant improvements to meet changing consumer and market demand.

2— What we have found is that there are some material inconsistencies in the production batch of this die-cast mechanism that we did not have in pre-production or sales samples in the previous two years. Such that if the process does not yield a perfect part that one normally strives for, the design variance allowable is too slim. What this means is if you have a good one, you’ve got a good one and within reason it will not break. If you received a bad one, it could be prone to break.

3--As soon as we saw the reoccurrence of this issue we jumped on the investigation immediately and have made the necessary changes to improve the integrity and consistency. All boots next year will have this update, and any boot that breaks this year can also get this new part by the end of January when we have finalized our field tests and received production units. Warranty exchange of this part until end of January is replaced with the current level of production parts which could again be suspect based on the same quality variance but it's not pandemic and only a small percentage. But which goes again back to –if you’ve got a good one, you should be fine and this should not be of concern. But going forwards, we’ve taken the steps to eliminate this possibility.

Sorry to any of you who have broken this piece, thanks for your patience and we’ll see you out on the hill.

BD

Thank you for updating us.

Are you also researching the issues with the buckles? Rivets are failing and the ratchet piece that receives the buckle is breaking.

[dima]

BD stepping up here...

I am impressed, so long as they keep on visiting and participating (hope this isn't a 1-time PR thing )

Never had a problem with any BD products.