 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
davkt, OMG... why didn't they let a small business man thrive!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
This is capitalism and everyone can attempt to sell a totally useless gadget to clueless. Though the price is a bit too high for something that does absolutely nothing and delivers no actual value whatsoever. There are no different from recco reflectors only recco reflectors usually come with an item of ski clothing so they are more useful. I don't think anyone remotely serious about off-piste skiing will be getting one of these, maybe punters who never go further than 3 meters outside the markers if they prefer to waste their money in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| never summer wrote: |
| This is capitalism and everyone can attempt to sell a totally useless gadget to clueless. Though the price is a bit too high for something that does absolutely nothing and delivers no actual value whatsoever. There are no different from recco reflectors only recco reflectors usually come with an item of ski clothing so they are more useful. I don't think anyone remotely serious about off-piste skiing will be getting one of these, maybe punters who never go further than 3 meters outside the markers if they prefer to waste their money in this way. |
There's a difference between capitalism and this.
Irrespective of whether you agree with the use of a transmit only device, I feel this product is flawed for a number of reasons including.
1: The risk is being way over-reported by the manufacturer. As Davidof said, the number of death from on-piste avalanches is so few as to be insignificant, so you might as well buy earthquake insurance or something equally pointless.
2: As the transmitter cannot meet the ISO standards for transceivers due to it's lack of receive mode, there is NO evidence to prove that it will even operate as described. Even if you decide this miniscule risk is enough of a risk to buy a device, would you buy a device which cannot backup its claims that it'll actually work as described, or would you buy a device for a few quid more which can, not only meet set standards, but also actually be used to assist in a search, even if that search is being carried out by someone other than the wearer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
feef, No, I wouldn't buy it. I am not into gadgets particularly into gadgets as useless as this one. That's why I don't care for any evidence or lack of it. The gadget serves no useful purpose so it's pretty irrelevant whether it works as described. It's a bit pricey for what it is, but if there are folks willing to buy it, let them. No-one with a bit of sense will buy it. And if someone buys it and goes off piste - well, there are still plenty of people going off piste without any equipment whatsoever, so I can't see it being very different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
It's not capitalism, it's fraud when you're selling something that may not work, never mind the false pretences upon which it's being sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| never summer wrote: |
| feef, No, I wouldn't buy it. I am not into gadgets particularly into gadgets as useless as this one. That's why I don't care for any evidence or lack of it. The gadget serves no useful purpose so it's pretty irrelevant whether it works as described. It's a bit pricey for what it is, but if there are folks willing to buy it, let them. No-one with a bit of sense will buy it. And if someone buys it and goes off piste - well, there are still plenty of people going off piste without any equipment whatsoever, so I can't see it being very different. |
Agree.
The reasons you list are exactly why "respected" organisations within the UK ski industry should not be promoting its use ?
Unless of course they have no morals....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap, Are there any respected organisations within the UK ski industry promoting it? Unless people refer these days to Telegraph to educate themselves about skiing:) I wouldn't be worried too much about them having a stand at the ski show. Trade fares are weird and a fair bit of stuff exhibited will hardly see any use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| never summer wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap, Are there any respected organisations within the UK ski industry promoting it? Unless people refer these days to Telegraph to educate themselves about skiing:) I wouldn't be worried too much about them having a stand at the ski show. Trade fares are weird and a fair bit of stuff exhibited will hardly see any use. |
Considering the Telegraph is the promoter that runs the Ski Show in London, I think they would have some level of credibility within the skiing community. Whether that credibility is deserved is a different matter, but I believe they do have a responsibility to at least check what they are promoting. In this case, it could maybe even harm them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
feef, You worry too much about this nonsense. There are many trade shows in most industries, and you get to see all sorts there. I don't understand the credibity issue either. It's a gadget, and no-one in the right mind will take it seriously. And Telegraph is a paper, just because it has a section dedicated to skiing doesn't make them experts in the area. Running ski shows also. Carlsberg organises and sponsors a fair bit of ski events, will you trust their expertise in skiing? In any case Telegraph promotes this gadget for what it is - a useless gadget. people have money so someone needs to help them spend it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| never summer wrote: |
| feef, You worry too much about this nonsense. There are many trade shows in most industries, and you get to see all sorts there. I don't understand the credibity issue either. It's a gadget, and no-one in the right mind will take it seriously. And Telegraph is a paper, just because it has a section dedicated to skiing doesn't make them experts in the area. Running ski shows also. Carlsberg organises and sponsors a fair bit of ski events, will you trust their expertise in skiing? In any case Telegraph promotes this gadget for what it is - a useless gadget. people have money so someone needs to help them spend it. |
^ Snow & Rock (and also another small UK ski store) stocked this item for a short period of time last winter....
But quickly removed it from sale when pointed out to them what a stupid and irresponsible idea it was to be promoting its use.
On the subject of avalanche safety the UK ski industry as a whole should be promoting best practice ?
This means transceiver, beacon & probe.
And also perhaps more importantly : avalanche education of the general public who are generally clueless.
Scaremongering clueless parents into buying on piste emitters is not responsible behavior (assuming these devices are used as intended!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
[quote="feef"]
| never summer wrote: |
1: The risk is being way over-reported by the manufacturer. As Davidof said, the number of death from on-piste avalanches is so few as to be insignificant, so you might as well buy earthquake insurance or something equally pointless. |
I've nothing against CSS or the device but I agree that the on-piste avalanche marketing is really lame. If I thought this device was necessary to ski on piste I wouldn't do it. As for a transmit only device, well they've been sold and marketed by Ortovox and Mammut so I can't see the issue really although the use case must be pretty limited. Maybe for kids but should you be going off piste where it may avalanche? Perhaps for a bit of peace of mind anyway, why not? But it would have to be in the 30-40 quid price range for that kind of use, it is just too close to the Pieps Freeride as has been said above.
The Freeride is not the ideal beginner beacon for searching - you could probably have a go at Pieps too for selling a beacon where the search mode is hard for beginners (who seem to be the market) to use effectively.
Quite a few people have been found with Reccos so I wouldn't ignore it as a basic piece of safety gear, probably perfect for the on-piste avalanche use case where the pisteurs can be there in a few minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Haggis_Trap, But it's a kiddies' toy to wear on baby slopes so that mummy and daddy can have their lunch without worrying that they can get buried by avalanche:). You take it too seriously. If anyone uses this devise not as intended, he's a fool and not much different from someone drinking washing-up liquid. If you go off-piste I am sure you are checking what sort of equipment your mates are wearing, so if you spot one of these, you make your decision then. If a bunch of people go off-piste all wearing this devise they are no better no worse than people who go off-piste without anything. So it's really a storm in a tea cup. And I doubt they can sell a bunch of these with the current asking price, so the product will die its natural death sooner or later. UK (or any other country's) ski industry is not responsible for promoting any practices. It's business is to sell tours and equipment. As for general public - 90% of them don't ever come any close to avalanche terrain, so why would they need this education?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^NeverSummer : if people hadn't made a fuss then James Aubrey Robson would still be promoting the same device for off piste use (see the link below).
Plus at least a couple of major UK ski stores would be selling them to clueless punters.
Maybe it is a small storm in a tea cup : but given their previous history I don't feel one bit guilty about screwing with Cambridge Ski Safety 
http://unofficialnetworks.com/dangerous-piece-avalanche-safety-gear-world-snowbe-98574/
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
If someone is promoting this for off-piste use then the fuss can be justified (but then again, if someone goes off-piste with anyone wearing one of these, I am not sure the company can be seriously blamed for it), but it doesn't look like it's the case now. Will be interesting to see how many units will actually sell. At the moment they are offered for free 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Will he not just kill this product and focus his business on something more useful? Maybe the bat claw for snowboarders to grapple onto passing skiers for a tow across flat spots ? Or a sticker that goes on every pair of rental skis saying "Remember you're an unfit untrained desk jockey not Didier Cuche"
He invented it because he saw a cheapskate gap in the market for off piste use. Everything else is revisionism or in new world terms a "pivot". Only the product hasn't changed just the scaremongering marketing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Just an additional thought for parents sending kids on school trips. Say JAR is successful in selling these into school trips because teachers are hoodwinked and add it to the "package". How do feel about an extra £50 going on the cost of the holiday and into his pocket?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Well, I don't think it'd be as simple as that.
1: if the school is having to buy them outright, I'd expect them to depreciate them over a number of years of usage and split the cost between multiple trips.
2: I'd hope that any educational region may buy a pool of them for use by schools
3: the TO the school is using is providing them
In all cases, I doubt the full £50 would be needed to cover the cost.
An alternative would be if they waived whatever cost if the child had their own transceiver.
But ultimately, it's a case of "if you don't like the Ts&Cs, then you don't have to come"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
