 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
geeo, I totally get the "god made sheep to be shorn" argument. But free speech means we get to criticise the scare-mongering muppet who is pimping this. I still believe that people may die as a result of such a device being available.
Advertising is still meant to be Honest, Decent Legal and Truthful... And I do expect more of shops and organisations selling medicines and safety gear making claims for safety or health, than I do for cosmetics manufacturers and second-hand car dealers.
Forums have opinions posted. Some may seem pompous and self-righteous to you, others may be relaxed about morality, integrity and happy to see others ripped off to some of the rest of us.
|
I always used to tell my mum i would record our arguments as she could never remember half of the things said during it, you would think when you write something a couple of times that it would be enough for your point to be understood but it seems not.
Sure criticise this crappy product show it up for what it is and let people DECIDE what to do, making/joining an online crusade against 2 of the retailers is a load of w4nk, telling others what is or isn't good for them is a bit communist 
What's next on the hitlist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
I hope CSS has good public liability insurance...
|
Especially as a potential market for this would appear to be the US where it seems to be accepted that you can ski off piste within bounds without any safety gear. Anyone know if the Americans are generally prone to being litigious??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Wow that deserves a thread of it's own, I remember plenty of spoof pages on iphone apps to do this but this is the first I've seen.
There've been discussions on here before about using wifi and bluetooth frequencies for this and often the people who (?seem) to know what they're talking about suggest their frequencies aren't optimal for penetrating snow/ice, on the company website they seem to be claiming 45m which is as good as beaconreviews found my Arva evo 3.
These are interesting times, certainly a free app would kill this snow-be's market.
What I'm more interested in, is in the video of the app in operation where did the snowboarder stash his probe and shovel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Re: the article about the telephone app/bluetooth bubble, it didn't suggest what would be used to search for it. Another mobile phone looking for a bluetooth signal?
I would also think there is a higher probability of a phone becoming detached from a victim too. As I understand it transceivers (and I guess even the snowbe) are going to be carried in purpose made, and presumably fully tested, harnesses in an attempt to keep them attached to the victim which won't be the case with a mobile phone.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Wed 27-03-13 23:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
making/joining an online crusade against 2 of the retailers is a load of w4nk, telling others what is or isn't good for them is a bit communist
|
Not everyone has the chance to assess every product that they buy and a short hand way of getting reasonalbe stuff is to go to retailer with a reputaion for reliable products and information. Letting a retailer know that stocking a 'safety' ski product that is potentially dangerous rubbish and could damage that reputation is once again part of the workings of the freemarket economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Ah, the video suggests that another phone searches, second part of the posting above still stands about keeping the phone on the victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think as a concept the phone app has as much/possibly more going for it, if it has been tested, than the snowbe as a concept. I like the idea that it calls other phones and the emergency services and that it can transmit a rough position. However, won't that rely on mobile phone coverage in the area you are offpiste skiing in? I thought that reception was patchy in mountain areas, with people going off the beaten track to get away from things like mobile phones!
Mind you they do suggest that it is no substitute for carrying normal kit. However, if you knew that you had both (which if you got the app. and followed the instructions you should have) what would you chose to search with? Surely the transciever? In which case the app only becomes useful for the calls it can place - though that in itself could be useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of my friends have their phones in their jackets/trousers.
looks like you will all have to gang up and Ddos this sucker quick before someone gets hurt using it, you dont wnt to look like your just picking on CCS do you, muster up time for action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
| Advertising is still meant to be Honest, Decent Legal and Truthful... |
That's right and Red Bull gives you wings. It doesn't though, I've tried, invested loads and still no wings. Really disappointing actually. And then there are those Apple iPhone TV ads that have to put a little sign up that basically says "by the way, after you've signed up to a 24 month contract you'll discover it doesn't work anything like this fast". Or the Lynx ads that assure me one quick spray and I'll be inundated with offers of sex from bikini models. I could go on - virtually NOTHING is advertised and sold truthfully. Safety products do need to be squeaky clean though and they shouldn't stray into the over-statement territory, and this on-piste avalanche thingy has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Megamum wrote: |
I think as a concept the phone app has as much/possibly more going for it, if it has been tested, than the snowbe as a concept. I like the idea that it calls other phones and the emergency services and that it can transmit a rough position. However, won't that rely on mobile phone coverage in the area you are offpiste skiing in? I thought that reception was patchy in mountain areas, with people going off the beaten track to get away from things like mobile phones!
Mind you they do suggest that it is no substitute for carrying normal kit. However, if you knew that you had both (which if you got the app. and followed the instructions you should have) what would you chose to search with? Surely the transciever? In which case the app only becomes useful for the calls it can place - though that in itself could be useful. |
Yeah but in this thread your missing the point. Its for the exceptionally rare on piste avalanche for the too tight/selfish to buy a proper transciever for their darling kids, it's ideal. Even if it doesn't work Mummy and Daddy can feel self righteous about sending the kids out prepared for all eventualities without spending penny (those kids are bound to already have demanded smartphones 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
I think as a concept the phone app has as much/possibly more going for it, if it has been tested, than the snowbe as a concept. I like the idea that it calls other phones and the emergency services and that it can transmit a rough position. However, won't that rely on mobile phone coverage in the area you are offpiste skiing in? I thought that reception was patchy in mountain areas, with people going off the beaten track to get away from things like mobile phones!
Mind you they do suggest that it is no substitute for carrying normal kit. However, if you knew that you had both (which if you got the app. and followed the instructions you should have) what would you chose to search with? Surely the transciever? In which case the app only becomes useful for the calls it can place - though that in itself could be useful.
|
I thought this was an interesting article. Without a doubt an IPhone app does not replace a transceiver and obviously not a shovel and probe (Apple is all about style not function - especially replacing a shovel!). However, it is very interesting how Smart Phone apps are evolving and moving into the space of other applications/hard-ware.
Would I trust my life with this - absolutely not. But I would like to see where these technological advancements take us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
The smart phone "avalanche beacon app" is an equally dumb idea for the following reasons.....
1) Smart phone battery only last 24 hours, especially in a cold environment. Bluetooth also drains the battery very fast....
2) In an emergency it is a really bad idea to have your phone + beacon running on the same battery. What happens if the battery runs out and you later need to call for help ?
3) The bluetooth frequency (2400–2480 MHz) is not optimized for propagation through snow. 457KHz was chosen as the standard for avalanche beacons for good reasons. This frequency gives the best performance / range through dense snow with minimum background RF interference from other bands.
4) GPS signals do not propagate reliably through snow. Also the accuracy of GPS is circa 10m and the signal could be turned off by the US military at any time. High rocks walls can also cause GPS signals to bounce resulting in occasional false reading.
5) When turned on smart phones are known to interfere with conventional avalanche beacons, especially in search mode.
6) The app can sends an alert to the rescue services if it detects an avalanche? How reliable is this feature ? And could it possibly send false alerts (for example if someone let their their bag roll down a hill).
7) If you can afford a smart phone you afford a beacon!
Though to be fair the designers of that app seem to have now realised all of this and changed its only purpose to become just a GPS transmitter which is used to send your location in event of an emergency. This could have some merit? That function is certainly a very different application to an avalanche beacon....
Here is their web page. (No mention of avalanche applications)
http://www.alpify.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
The smart phone "avalanche beacon app" is an equally dumb idea for the following reasons.....
1) Smart phone battery only last 24 hours, especially in a cold environment. Bluetooth also drains the battery very fast....
2) In an emergency it is a really bad idea to have your phone + beacon running on the same battery. What happens if the battery runs out and you later need to call for help ?
3) The bluetooth frequency (2400–2480 MHz) is not optimized for propagation through snow. 457KHz was chosen as the standard for avalanche beacons for good reasons. This frequency gives the best performance / range through dense snow with minimum background RF interference from other bands.
4) GPS signals do not propagate reliably through snow. Also the accuracy of GPS is circa 10m and the signal could be turned off by the US military at any time. High rocks walls can also cause GPS signals to bounce resulting in occasional false reading.
5) When turned on smart phones are known to interfere with conventional avalanche beacons, especially in search mode.
6) The app can sends an alert to the rescue services if it detects an avalanche? How reliable is this feature ? And could it possibly send false alerts (for example if someone let their their bag roll down a hill).
7) If you can afford a smart phone you afford a beacon!
Though to be fair the designers of that app seem to have now realised all of this and changed its only purpose to become just a GPS transmitter which is used to send your location in event of an emergency. This could have some merit? That function is certainly a very different application to an avalanche beacon....
Here is their web page. (No mention of avalanche applications)
http://www.alpify.com/ |
Ehh no that's a different app, the website your looking for is http://www.isis-application.com/
And yes they are saying for avalanches, although do have tiny disclaimer on video suggesting probe/shovel/transciever
Whilst your points may be correct, in the context of this thread it's people (hopefully) not going off piste and are too tight/stupid to buy a transceiver, it would certainly kill the market for this poorly concieved cambridge device
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
^ wow - that video and application is dumb.
1) shows someone skiing off piste using a smart phone application for their beacon.
2) one of the 3 group members has no rucksack.
The only plus point I can see is that the application does have a search mode. So at least there is a small chance of companion rescue using the bluetooth signal. Though of course everyone in the group needs to be running the same app, with their battery charged (and bluetooth kills phone battery, especially in the cold). Plus you still need a shovel + probe to get them out.
I stand by the comments above that a smart phone application is not acceptable for various technical reasons. IMHO unless you put a proper 457KHz antenna and dedicated 2nd battery into the hardware of a smart phone then then any "app" will always be flawed in some way (plus no wants a chunky smart phone the size of a beacon).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Feef, a question you have asked previously on the forum has been missed which T Bar has also referred to regarding the compliance with EN300 718. This is a standard specifically designed for transceivers and therefore our emitter device cannot comply with this regulation as there is no search function. However as part of our design process we have made it comply with all the physical and transmission requirements of 300 718 that appertain to the transmission elements. On the initial post we invited anyone to visit our manufacturing site with us to inspect the process and we again extend that invitation out. I hope that helps.
ami in berlin, regarding Recco and the comparisons and questions raised here. The emitter is designed for children that ski on-piste, so its function is more specific than that of Recco. Faster response times on-piste when emitting at 457Khz by resort professionals are expected. The number of transceiver devices available quickly in a burial situation is higher and because we are clear about the emitters function being used for children we are not in any way trying to encourage others to replace their transceiver devices with our emitter.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| our emitter device cannot comply with this regulation as there is no search function ...we have made it comply with all the physical and transmission requirements of 300 718 that appertain to the transmission elements. |
so basically it is not actually officially certified ? and you have no certificates to show us.
but we need to trust you that it would meet all the various requirements (for battery life, shock proofing, reliability, cold weather operation, range, RF power, pulse width etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Haggis Trap, we would be happy to show you how we have made it comply with 300 718 but there is no certification available for the emitter device currently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| our emitter device cannot comply with this regulation as there is no search function ...we have made it comply with all the physical and transmission requirements of 300 718 that appertain to the transmission elements. |
so basically it is not actually officially certified ? and you have no certificates to show us.
but we need to trust you that it would meet all the various requirements (for battery life, shock proofing, reliability, cold weather operation, range, RF power, pulse width etc) |
That's my point. It's a claim that cannot be backed up.
Considering I tried to buy a sno-be, and the purchase was not honoured (it required a paypal complaint to get the refund); and the number of times this product has appeared and reappeared in different guises and brands, I have grave doubts about the integrity of the product and it's history to date.
I, for one, and not comfortable relying on a claim that it meets a standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| cambridgeski wrote: |
| Haggis Trap, we would be happy to show you how we have made it comply with 300 718 but there is no certification available for the emitter device currently. |
Why not make some videos of your testing processes and post them on YouTube or something? It would help your claims, it would be good PR for you, and also demonstrate it's robustness and ability to meet these criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Another store that will no longer selling the on piste emitter after I sent them this topic...
I am probably due some bad karma for my trouble making ?
https://www.icanski.co.uk/search
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Haggis_Trap, you don't get bad karma doing good things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
The smart phone "avalanche beacon app" is an equally dumb idea for the following reasons.....
4) GPS could be turned off by the US military at any time. |
You're far, far more likely to be caught in an on-piste avalanche than for that to happen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Can someone tell me why the beacons are all so expensive - the technology can't be complicated so the fact they cost so much is just profiteering. Shame CSS can't make the full bit of kit at a decent price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alti - dude, the tech is complicated and the market relatively small. There's a reason why "CSS" are making the bone, easy bit of kit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
alti - dude, Don't forget that 20% VAT adds a chunk (Unless safety gear has an exemption ?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| alti - dude wrote: |
| Can someone tell me why the beacons are all so expensive - the technology can't be complicated so the fact they cost so much is just profiteering. |
Avalanche beacons are sold in small volumes, to niche markets with tough test procedures. Each model will sell only 10-20K units each per year - which is tiny (smart phones sell 10's of millions units). Because the numbers manufactured are small they need to use discrete components, primarily because it doesnt make economic sense to intergate everything onto a microchip like apple or sony can do. So this also pushes the cost up.
Pieps are one of the big players in the beacon market with a good market share.
They were 2 million euro in debt before before black diamond bought them out.
http://blackdiamond-inc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=118683&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1737587
£150-200 for a beacon that will last you 10 years is a good investment ?
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 28-03-13 21:56; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alti - dude wrote: |
| Can someone tell me why the beacons are all so expensive - the technology can't be complicated so the fact they cost so much is just profiteering. Shame CSS can't make the full bit of kit at a decent price. |
They're not expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
It's also obvious that a transceiver is not just a 'beacon' but is a beacon location device too and has more antennae, more modes, switches, buttons and display hardware. They're not rocket science to use but they need investment in time to get to know and their ethos is that skiing with a companion might allow companion rescue. You can get buried fairly easily without doing any practice at all but you do need to practice to effectively find and pinpoint a signal before attempting a live burial rescue with the kit in your backpack. The SnowBe appears to be just a 'beacon' that relies on the hope that a stranger or two with transceivers, probes and shovels are nearby enough to try to save your life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
DT68, no one dismissed that possibility it was just pointed out how very, very, rare it is. 
Nice use of a tragic event to try to score points though. Stay classy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Almost inevitable that someone would cite this as support for the CSS case. (I know the above quote doesn't make it support just counter-point)
Before it becomes support I'd think the following questions are reasonable:
Was the victim completely buried?
How were they located and dug out?
What was the time elapsed?
What were the nature of the fatal injuries? e.g. if crush injuries from wet slab, rescue time might be irrelevant.
What was the role of the professional "moniteur" accompanying the party both in rescue and route selection?
If I was CSS I'd be out in Les Arcs trying to discover as much for myself about the incident as possible given that it might be important to my positioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
fatbob, thank you for having the wit (beyond others, it would seem) to identify the difference between a counter-point and support.
There is a bit more detail on the Les Arcs weather report thread:
| araird wrote: |
Here's a translation of the Dauphiné article today about the avalanche which killed a Russian skier in Les Arcs yesterday:
The 41 year old Russian skier buried by an avalanche on Friday afternoon at Les Arcs died yesterday morning (saturday).
The avalanche that buried her was 50m wide, while she was skiing on the Grand Renard piste, a link between Arc 2000 and 1800. She was with other skiers and an instructor.
The piste rescue service was quickly alerted and immediately probed the area, but they found the holiday maker half an hour later, in cardiac arrest. She was taken by helicopter by the CRS ALpes to Grenoble Hospital where she was admitted ina critical state.
The slip stared 30m above the piste. However the 'Plan PIDA' avalanche release intervention had been carried out the same morning.
To determine the exact circumstances of this drama the Magistrates at Albertville have opened an inquiry. The piste service has already been questioned. An expert nivologist is expect at the scene today.
According to the magistrate the inquiry will examine if the settting-off the spontaneous avalanche was totally unforseeable, or if, bearing in mind the weather and snow conditions, the piste should have been closed or a second PIDA intervention should have been carried out. ... |
meh, attack the messenger not the message: heads you win (because there is little evidence), tails CSS loses (because it is tasteless to point to the evidence). Classy indeed. Let's just remind ourselves what you said on page 6 of this thread:
| meh wrote: |
... the risk of avalanche on piste is completely negligible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DT68, you need to actually read what I wrote because I actually addressed your argument first, which was easily discredited, as it was completely incorrect. Then I fairly criticized you for exploiting this tragic event which is perfectly reasonable as you are appropriating someones untimely demise to essentially continue an argument on the internet. Which is especially hypocritical as you are the one who complains throughout the thread about politeness! 
To address some of your points, there is lots of evidence about how rare these events are, the relevant bodies collect it every year and typically publish it as well. Anyone who fancies it can go run the numbers against skier days. This shows the individual risk is negligible and if you have access to a dictionary you should look negligible up because you don't appear to know what it means. It supports my point not yours. Since you won't be bothered, it means in context that it's a risk that can be ignored looking at the larger scheme of things, not that it doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I had a few drinks last night with some friends, and a friend of those friends.
He was relating the tale of another friend of his who had started up a company that was very involved with the Emmiting Only Avalanche Beacons.
I played (quite dumb) and was told the tale ....how Snow & Rock (and others) had been very supportive and happy to sell them, all was going well, and it seems the existing beacon manufacturers to put pressure onto S & R etc to stop selling them.
Everybody else there was a keen skier (one person is the co-owner of a substantial multi chalet operator). Everybody agreed that the beacons in question were not really a substitute for the proper ones....the conversation then turned to avie air bag systems.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 6-04-13 15:25; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rungsp, SRSLY? Wow - didn't take a whole lot to topple the house of cards then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm now living fat off the $$$ provided by all my amazing beacon industry bribes. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made a big mistake earlier:
I forgot that the anonymity of the Internet, and a nom-de-plume, does not in any way mean that there are not real people behind what we write, and comment upon, and that real people have real feelings.
I wish to unreservedly apologise to at least four people.
Two of whom have been very upset, one of whom is justifiably very annoyed, and one of whom probably is. They are all fully justified in their feelings.
A salutory lesson in my case, the first and last time that I will do something so thoughtless and indiscreet.
If you are reading this please accept my sincere apologies, and my very best wishes for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Talking of industry bribes....
James Cove of Planet Ski is promoting the transmit only avalanche beacon from Cambridge Ski Safety.
The 'sponsored article' from Feb is still listed on the front page of his website under the headline 'saving the life of a child'.
http://www.planetski.eu/news/4621
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Planetski advertorial. Shame on James Cove for his puffery and lack of critical thinking.
| Quote: |
"The device is manufactured in the UK and is the brainchild of the company, Cambridge Ski Safety, that was established in 2011 by James Robson.
Aware of ever-increasing avalanche risk faced by his 7-year old daughter, he was looking for a cost-effective way to maximise her survival prospects and he designed the emitter.
Father and daughter were skiing in La Rosiere in France two years ago just off the marked run when an avalanche came near them."
|
Really? So an "on piste only" device wouldn't have helped them anyway
I think the better decision here might have been to spring a couple of hundred quid for some proper transceivers rather than thousands into some half baked and ill justified product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
