 Poster: A snowHead
|
madmole,
I also own a Pieps Freeride as well as a multi antenna beacon. IMHO it is better to lend out the multi antenna beacon, and carry the Freeride myself, because the Freeride requires more skill to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Not having been a party to the previous conversations, can someone please clear up a point that I think has got lost in the ire: I agree it's a steep price and the stated purpose is ludicrous but does the device actually work i.e. is it crap or is it just 'crap' for the two reasons stated at the start of this sentence?
The reason I ask is that I can think of a use for the product with a few tweaks that is not related to safety and I am interested in a product review based on a standalone assessment rather than a comparison.
To be fair, I can also see a limited use for the product in the case of guided off piste for beginners. It's not as though they will have the relevant transceiver search experience and it's better for them to go with a cheap rented transmitter and an emergency number to call than nothing at all. I personally would not recommend doing this but I have seen some guided tours that were really approaching backwoods excursions in some pretty hairy places (e.g the off piste Swiss excursion the Prince of Wales took a while back that ended up with one of the party dead, I'll bet none of the guided were kitted with transceivers and/or knew how to use them). Also it may have been useful in that the just off piste death of Mimi, that poor girl in Chamonix and also that pre season on piste accident in Val D/Tignes (?) recently.
You can see how this product came into being - it's for kids and adults that don't have the experience or skill to use a transceiver. Just as the manufacturers were about to laud the off-piste credentials, someone woke up and said 'Why would anyone be taking the inexperienced into such avalance prone, off piste areas and do we really want to be seen encouraging this sort of activity.' Cue rapid re-think on the marketing and the rather ridiculous on piste avalance scenario. The product's not really for that purpose but you can see why the company would be leery of marketing it in any other 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?
|
| Quote: |
To be fair, I can also see a limited use for the product in the case of guided off piste for beginners
|
No, that is not a good use of the product. If you are having a guided off piste session for off piste beginners then part of that shoudl be learnign how ot use the transceivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Is it worth equiping kids who might jump off piste and dive through some trees occasionally with a pieps freeride (and I guess one on me) if they/me aren't carrying a shovel and a probe. NB. I am expecting the usual mother hen comments, but if it sounds a half useful notion I'd probably cough for the pieps devices - if it sounds overkill to the majority here I won't bother. N.B. The assumption being that we would learn to use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
| I agree it's a steep price and the stated purpose is ludicrous but does the device actually work i.e. is it crap or is it just 'crap' for the two reasons stated at the start of this sentence? |
Used responsibly, I'm sure it works fine. But it won't be used responsibly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
| is it crap or is it just 'crap' for the two reasons stated at the start of this sentence? |
^ The principal of Avalanche beacon's depends on companion rescue from other members of your group. This clearly requires a search mode - and also basic training so that everyone in the group knows what to do in event of an accident (i.e those on the surface need to stop transmitting themselves before the search starts!). Waiting for the rescue service's to be alerted and arrive is simply not an option when someone is buried under the snow.
| Quote: |
| You can see how this product came into being... |
I suspect Mr James Keith Aubrey Robson is an amateur "fred in a shed" electronics guy that didn't research his market properly. The original intention was probably to make a cheap avalanche beacon - but he found the search mode a little challenging to implement. Probably has 2000 odd units that he cant sell because they have no use what so ever... So he tries spamming various forums...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't shoot me folks, but I can actually see a use for this as a cheap transmitter to use in practicing beacon searches in your local uk park/woods. Difficult to do unless you have 2 transceivers (or a friend- brings out violin).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I recall correctly la Chaumine ( it was a bit like The Skiers Lodge but posher) in la Grave use to equip clients with something called a Blip which was exactly the same as this- an emitter.
I think about this all a bit differently from the 'This is dangerous' line.
1. As marketed it is a pointless waste of money- if you are so worried about on piste avalanches to bother about doing something about it then perhaps the best thing to do is not go skiing.
2. There is an at least arguable case for emitters with no search function- for guided groups or perhaps for a slightly adventurous family taking kids a little off piste (yes I know I know bla bla bloodly bla but there IS such a thing- the sort of terrain where no avalanche gear at all is perfectly reasonable- but where developing good habits is highly desirable).
3. I will eat my hat if anybody dies because they are wearing one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
| 3. I will eat my hat if anybody dies because they are wearing one. |
I think we're saying someone may have more chance of dying because too many others in the vicinity are wearing one.
Actually this thread has given me a brilliant Dragon's Den idea . . . well I think it may be so's I'm STFU now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohthe Blips were made by Arva- does that mean that Arva is run by the Devil himself and therefore all Arva products are no better than Satan's Snot? (no it doesn't).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Masque, that will also never happen!
Don't get me wrong I think these are utter pants too, but I just don't feel hysterical about it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Mind you what does make these things so expensive to buy. Are they full of expensive parts? I don't understand the electronics that go into them so have no idea what they might cost to manufacture, but the half decent ones are certainly costly enough to put folks off buying them esp. if you wanted to equip a whole family. It's like a lot of safety gear (across all sports) we are all encouraged to use it, yet it always costs an arm and a leg. Is it just clever marketing - lets hype up the perceived risk sufficiently and everyone in the sport will capitulate and buy one and we will make a fortune, OR do they genuinely cost a lot to produce?
I'm thinking of body protectors at £100 for a bit of foam
Riding hats - say £50+ for a bit of fibre glass/plastic and foam - ski helmets too
Airbags - riding and skiing - OK, there is probably more technology and testing involved in these, but I bet they want £300+ for them
Transceivers - I looked at an Ortovox one earlier £200+
I just wonder what sort of mark-up is going on. Cost should not put people off purchasing safety gear, yet much safety gear is really expensive to buy (expensive enough for it all to be a considered purchase). Do the components in a transceiver really cost a considerable amount that warrants the final cost?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ed123, Yes, these are pants and useless for the advertised sales pitch and the same for off-piste use . . . but there is . . . no, you're not gonna catch me out like that 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Megamum, small market, and serious costs for type approval and authority to sell. They'll never be cheap but in terms of value for money . . . priceless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Megamum wrote: |
I just wonder what sort of mark-up is going on. Cost should not put people off purchasing safety gear, yet much safety gear is really expensive to buy (expensive enough for it all to be a considered purchase). Do the components in a transceiver really cost a considerable amount that warrants the final cost? |
Guess a lot of the final cost is down to the engineering needed to make sure the thing works without fail in a very extreme situation, shake most electronic gadgets up like you and beacon get shaken up in avalanche and I suspect they would stop working within seconds!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
just been looking at the Pieps Freerides- at £70 there is every reason to get them for the kids as we do take them- just a bit off piste and the 11 year old is (physically and technically) capable of skiing himself into very serious trouble (as he doesn't really know what he is doing- he just does it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
ed123, I was wondering about doing the same thing for mine. I could probably run to the Pieps freerides and mine are already jumping off the edge of the piste and doing some off-piste through the trees stuff with instructors. I was thinking as I could afford them at the moment, were they worth getting and starting to become familiar with them now so that they are available should they go properly off-piste in the next couple of years, which I can see happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Megamum, Half the thing is practising with them before you need to use them for real so if you can get at least a couple then practice in the garden or local park/fields, get someone to hide one set to transmit then use the other to find it. The only use for the things that started this thread (if they were about £20!) is as a practice tool if you only have one full beacon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
As I mentioned earlier on in the thread I own both a Pieps Freeride and a multi antenna beacon (Ortovox Patroller Digital).
The Patroller Digital is presently available on German Ebay, with a metal shovel and probe, for £162 (posted to UK).
The Ortovox beacon is significantly easier to use than a Freeride.
The Freeride is ok (I wouldn't carry it to rescue my girlfriend with if it wasn't) but it is only suitable if you are going to commit yourself to regular time spent practicing in the park with it. The range of the Freeride is shorter, it suffers from spikes, and there is a real knack to using it to search with. The Patroller Digital however is much more intuitive to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Agreed the Freeride isnt as intuitive and quick as a modern 3 antenae, but 10 mins of practice is enough to master the basics. Its certainly on a par with all the old analogue and single antenae models
But yes, equiping the whole familiy with them would work and as you have more than 1 you can then easily practice in the garden. The small size means carrying them all day is easy and they are very easy to learn how to use properly. The bigest issue with them would be in a multiple burial scenario as they have no masking and just always point to the strongest signal
Oh from a practice session last week, if you cant afford a beeper, wear a set of Christmas tree lights. In two different houses the tree lights registered as a beeper on ALL of my 7 units (Ortovox, Pieps and Barryvox)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Megamum,
| Quote: |
Mind you what does make these things so expensive to buy.
|
Masque, Is correct its a small market, with extensive testing and approvals need, the manufactures also have to build in recall and updates to their equipment, in the past few years all the major manufactures of transceivers and airbags have had to recalls on their products to ensure they operate safely.
The other issue is that because its small markets then there are distributors and retailers in the mix as well, most of the major players can not afford to sell and distribute themselves the exception being Mammut.
When it comes to transceivers always look at the best you can possible afford, technology is moving on and the newer digital models have software update systems which means they will be current for much longer than the older models, the other side of the coin is that most kids today are pretty tec up to date and are able to use smart phones without much of a problem, these skills transfer well to the newer digital transceivers as the look and feel is much the same as a phone.
Megamum, I am sure there is a Snowhead discount knocking around some where LOL with some one who sells these things 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of interesting points have been made here which have raised a couple of questions in my mind about this product and it's suitability for use in the mountains in ANY capacity.
To be sold as an avalanche transceiver, the devices must conform to the EN 300 standard (which supercedes the EN 282 standard which was implemented in 1997).
The standard has requirements for various tests, over and above the basic ability to send and receive on the 457khz frequency. These tests include physical robustness, both to shock and vibration, resistance to moisture and water ingress, battery life and effective operation throughout a wide range of temperatures.
Unless these devices have been tested to the same rigorous standard, I'd not risk using one even as a simple transmitter. I would still use one for basic practice at home or in the park, which is all they are good for imho.
In answer to the queries about cost, the issue I've found is that there's no call for anything to operate on 457khz frequency, so there are no readily available transmitters or receivers that operate on that frequency. Getting them made specially has a fair amount of cost associated with it.
What I AM looking into is whether digital data can be piggybacked on the analogue square-wave signal which is used, and while I'm as much a shed-tinkerer as the next man, I think I have some valid developments to add to transceivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
What I AM looking into is whether digital data can be piggybacked on the analogue square-wave signal which is used
|
A little like the Barryvox Pulse does, it uses analog as well as digital signal? Or are you thinking of something different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
1.) Errr - no one's answered my question
2.) feef,
| Quote: |
the issue I've found is that there's no call for anything to operate on 457khz frequency,
|
- all emergency transceivers work on this frequency and I don't want anything else doing so becasue of the interference risk. With you on the standards point but that goes to (1.) above. If you 'blip' an analogue signal it can carry digital data but I don't think it's very efficient. Isn't the usual way to vary the wave amplitude so that you get two states, x and 2x where x = 0 and 2x = 1? The frequency variation can carry the analogue info and the amplitude the digital.
3.) With due respect, how is a six year old panicing because his parent(s) just got buried and because they narrowly missed the same fate going to (a) work a transceiver and (2) dig you out in the unlikely event they do find you? Sorry to be blunt but I was trained to analyse these scenarios and the expectations expressed are a little irrational in my opinion. If you accept this then emitters make much more sense. Like it or loathe it, KISS applies and I would guess an emitter only device would last longer and potentially send a stronger signal, both of which make a good trade off if you are buried.
4.) Masque, naff off - I had the Dragon's den idea first!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mammut and (I believe) ARVA both make W-Link capable transceivers, which use a second, higher frequency band to transmit additional information like beacon ID (making masking and identifying overlapping beacons easier) and "vital signs" detection (for what that's worth. not transmitted by the Element beacon, either). Clearly the view there was that a second channel was more desirable than applying any modulation to the main signal. This may just have been for the sake of keeping existing certifications and hardware, of course.
I don't know if any other manufacturers plan to support it, which I think is the most important thing... we could easily end up with a bunch of competing 'standards' which would be a bit daft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
livetoski, that would be two distinct transmitters, feef's looking to send digital data on an analogue signal, slightly different. I think he's trying to slightly re-invent the wheel (if I understand him correctly) since phase shift keying seems to be close to what he's trying to do but that requires two analouge waves. There's also quadrature amplitude modulation for a combined analogue and digital siganl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 standard (ETSI EN 300 718) specifies A1A (CW by another name). If you use any other form of modulation, eg to carry data, then you won't get approval.
W-Link uses 868/900MHz ISM bands for data. Cheap chips available (eg Maxim MAX290x). Unfortunately, there are different bands in North America and rest of world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
1.) Errr - no one's answered my question
2.) feef,
| Quote: |
the issue I've found is that there's no call for anything to operate on 457khz frequency,
|
- all emergency transceivers work on this frequency and I don't want anything else doing so becasue of the interference risk. With you on the standards point but that goes to (1.) above. |
All we can be sure about is that it "works" when demoed at the ski show or under simple test conditions. There's no evidence from the manufacturer to suggest it's been tested to meet similar standards as a 'proper' transceiver, so for me the answer to the question "does it work" is: it may operate as a transmitter sending pulses on the 457khz frequency, but I have no confidence in it's ability to operate effectively in the environment where it'll be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
mmmmmmm electronics porn 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
feef, fair enough. It sort of answers the question - no one knows if it works to standard or not so, for all we know, it could outperform a transceiver?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Serriadh, that W-Link moral argument is interesting. When I first read it I thought 'Great, triage info so you can go to the one most in need first' - then I read the rest of the section. I think it the manufacturers wimped out. They should build the in functions but leave it to the individual to make the choice to switch on personal/micro movement data or not. Given the choice, I bet the majority choose to activate the functions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
RattytheSnowRat,
| Quote: |
no one knows if it works to standard or not so, for all we know, it could outperform a transceiver?
|
They were approx 20m away from me at the London Ski Show while I was on the Ortovox stand doing transceiver demo's we only got a very faint signal from them at this distance, mind you there were lots of stands and stuff in the way, and the interference was mad in Earls Court as you can imagine.
But we did pick up other transceivers which were further away no problem. Read into this what you like, I spoke with the guys selling them at the show and did not get a response on the standards issue, they have contacted me since and so far it does not really interest us as the emitter is being marketed as a "on piste" device and we are more "off piste" stuff.
I think one of the standards is to do with frequency drift over time, transceivers as mentioned above have to operate in harsh conditions and a small frequency drift can seriously affect their ability to be picked up by other transceivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I think freq drift has to be under +/- 80hz to comply to EU standard. According to their site, the Cambridge units are EU standard compatible which also means they are backwards compatible to the old standard, should be able to take being buried under snow and should not drift outside the permitted level.
20m seems pretty limited - to make a resonable argument for their existence I would expect the unit to outperform transceivers as emitters, if they don't do that then I can really only think of one other use (other than training) BUT I suspect I would get howled at if I sugested it
There's an intersting conversation going on in another SH thread about using mobile phones as transceiver substitutes. I actually think that idea might have 'legs' given certain improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
I think freq drift has to be under +/- 80hz to comply to EU standard. According to their site, the Cambridge units are EU standard compatible which also means they are backwards compatible to the old standard, should be able to take being buried under snow and should not drift outside the permitted level.
20m seems pretty limited - to make a resonable argument for their existence I would expect the unit to outperform transceivers as emitters, if they don't do that then I can really only think of one other use (other than training) BUT I suspect I would get howled at if I sugested it
There's an intersting conversation going on in another SH thread about using mobile phones as transceiver substitutes. I actually think that idea might have 'legs' given certain improvements. |
standard compatible doesn't mean it's compliant. I'd go so far as to suggest the compatibility is on frequency and signal alone, and still doesn't take into account the environmental and physical requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
mobile phones as transceiver substitutes
|
not seen that one yet!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
