Does Sumo count as waterproof?Quote:
Originally Posted by wharfeego
Printable View
Does Sumo count as waterproof?Quote:
Originally Posted by wharfeego
I think there are two separate but linked issues with the rules - one is the level/type/standard of personal kit required to be carried and I agree totally that what the RO requires is what we should all carry. The only problem with this previously (apart from deliberate actions by a small minority) was differing interpretations of what that meant. Although common sense can be applied a lot of people had different views as evidenced by the ongoing debate here and on the equipment thread. It was a bit like setting a speed limit according to common sense - everyone will drive at a different speed based on what they perceive to be safe and reasonable. l sincerely hope the new rules will bring some clarity and a common accepted standard, they haven't yet but I think things will settle down and we will be in a better position than before.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Thats all fine but there seems to be a feeling that because most of the extra problems will affect ROs and not runners the rest of it is less important to 'us'. But if ROs start feeling unable to hold races because the rules are too onerous or difficult to comply with then it could affect all of 'us' in a big way. My worry is that some of the rules might be just that in some races and my preference would have been for the FRA to say we know that and accept it. I'm not really referring to administrative procedures, number sequences etc, but to practical things like being able to inform marshals how many runners to expect, who has retired etc, and equally for the marshals to be able to pass important messages to race control quickly if they need to. Thats the bit I dont think is reasonably likely to be achievable all the time.
The vision of Sumo all limp and floppy after detumescence is a little too stark for so early in the evening.Quote:
Originally Posted by wharfeego
The carrying of waterproofs is not really a big deal compared to the problem thar ROs will have with number sequencing for pre-entered races when quite a few don't show.
the extra kit is more bureaucracy but easily managed. we have a long way to go till we get to triathlon rules where one competitor at helvellyn was disqualified for having no lights on his bike on a mild and clear Sunday morning - the rule was they had to be carried even though no one used them.
can you use pins or sticky pads direct on he chest
Always running just never at speed
Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg
I have counted and over 1/3rd of the FRA Committee are active RO for little races like Sedbergh Hills, Borrowdale, Sailbeck, Coledale, Kinder Trial + a stack of Rossendale/Junior/Keighley & Craven races.
It occurs to me that they, and the rest of the FRA Committee, in contrast with the anonymous "experts" on here, may actually know what they are doing and why.
Just a thought.
Looking at the new draft requirements, it does actually say "For pre-entry races, vest numbers should preferably be issued on the day so there are no pre-allocated but “uncollected” vest numbers."Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg
I'll pass on the pins in the chest but I'm sure Luvshack and one or two others will give it a go!Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg
I have to say I feel a little sorry for the committee. They work for us on our behalf for free to provide a safer environment and allow races to go ahead. We all know this yet there's always some complaint about what they do
No one wants to see any injury of a fellow runner but it's in the nature of the places we run that accidents happen. they just want to make sure we improve the odds if some thing does go wrong, they at least can sleep soundly knowing they did there upmost to make our sport less risky.
We can't run races with out insurance, insurance is about gambling on the risk. Reduce the risk and the fees go down allowing races to go ahead.
maybe the beer is talking too much. I'm going to bed. I've a busy weekend. night
Well said ol' chapQuote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Complaining about the details of the new rules: pointless, whatever decisions they have reached are for the good of fellrunning, and are the best that they could come up with. Kit standards change. Rules change.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
But asking for a bit of communication/clarity is fair (obviously I do not know at this time what they have planned for the calendar/magazine)
I know the committee didn't want to name particular items of kit, but for years the Mistlite 130 has been sold in shops as:
- waterproof (rightly or wrongly)
- and meeting FRA requirements
So without some special steps, a lot of people (eg occasional fellrunners, not forumites) will have no clue that this has changed. They could even be permitted with a warning for 6-12 months. I just imagine the committee doing nothing on this, as with the 'heavier than Pertex' issue.
Some guidelines are needed I think, maybe ROs need to start stating now what they would accept / decline.
Or even just the byline that FRA waterproofs are now equivalent to OMM ones would help get across the implications of the new rules.
I would compare it to changing the British Champs rules this year without explicitly mentioning it, so a lot of people did not realise it was any 3 from 4 races.
As far as I've seen the mistlite were always sold as water resistant, which isn't the same as waterproof, and they do meet the FRA core standards for wind proof which has now changed to waterproof. They never had taped seams or a proper waterproof membrane.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
I said rightly or wrongly. A lot of shops sold them as 'waterproof', and a lot of runners have considered them 'waterproof' kit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Furness
Read the equipment thread here, or for example this from http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/forum/...st/132796.html
Or this http://www.usedwalsall.co.uk/classif...-pant_22351439Quote:
Inov8 Mistlite waterproof trousers 130g or if just windproof needed Montane Featherlite pants 90g, extemities windy lite gloves, arcteryx thin merino wool hat. All put in Pete Bland 4l bumbag with compression straps thatweighs virtually nothing
I am saying that a lot of people have the perception that they are 'waterproof' so will believe that they meet the new requirements.Quote:
Fell running 'waterproof' trousers
Had to buy for a 'kit list' for a particular event-pack down very small
And don't bother me again until you've actually read the thread in 'equipment'...
Charming :closed:Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
Tell you what, you keep wearing whatever you want and make your own judgement. I'm only stating the facts as they were when I last looked at a pair.
A quick recap, no bias whatsoever of course :lie:
[Fellrunner] It's perfectly fair that kit standards change over the years, I just hope that the committee communicates one or two things very clearly, especially about one item of kit that seems likely to cause a lot of confusion.
[Mountain Marathoner] (authoritative) Don't be silly, we're all experienced mountain marathoners who have known for years precisely which item of kit meets different kinds of standards, and everyone will know about it through the æther, so there is no need for any clarification, and in any case who would be so idiotic as to even think about wading through a stream without taped seams on their leggings?
[Fellrunner] (ascerbic) Look, some of us actually choose to stay at home when the weather's bad, but now thanks to this run-in-any-weather mentality I have to go and fork out on an expensive new kit item when the Inov8 Mistlite was the perfect kit item for the job, but will no longer be allowed even on a fine summer's day. And people won't be aware of this, as you would see if you looked at another thread here, or Googled it, instead of simply assuming that everyone has the same knowledge as you.
[Industry Expert] (sorry WP I don't mean it harshly) You know you can get these cheap waterproofs that meet the requirement.
[Mountain Marathoner] (nonplussed) Huh?
[Fellrunner] (nonplussed) Huh?
[Industry Expert] They're cheap and meet all the requirements.
[Mountain Marathoner] Well, apart from being a useful kit item that you could actually run in.
[Fellrunner] Exactly, I mean what is the point in being made to switch from the adequately waterproof Mistlites, which I've quite happily worn for cycling in torrential rain once or twice, for something that's going to make me overheat. It's a backwards step.
[Mountain Marathoner] Anyway, we all know what to do, we can run in lighter water resistant kit, and carry proper waterpoofs for emergencies.
[Fellrunner] (furtive) It's stupid. I'm not carrying two sets. Do you think I can patch mine up with sellotape until I can afford a proper set?
[Industry Expert] Of course you can't!
[Fellrunner] (sarcastic) You mean at the races, the officials will instantly know the difference thanks to the new kit-checker qualification course?
[Mountain Marathoner] (dismissive) You do what you think is OK for you.
[Fellrunner] (annoyed) you really don't understand what I'm saying, I am not disagreeing with the new rules, just saying the FRA needs to take steps to tell people one or two things. Especially about the Mistlite 130, however 'wrong' people were who thought they were waterproof, and on this whole Pertex Shield business ~ when I can afford it, I can go and replace those Mitslite 130s with something offering less weather protection that just happens to have taped seams! It's a bit confusing!
Hardly industry expert LJ :) not for waterproofs anyway, although I have had 30 years in footwear and 4 years working with foul weather PPE for marine workers.
Anyway, I hadn't seen the comeback comments about running in the cheaper ones.
I have an expensive berghaus waterproof jacket that was £100+ and a £20 Dare2Be (Regatta sub brand).
There's actually very little difference in terms of the performance of the material in the jacket.
The Berghaus has a storm flap on the front zip. Storm Flaps are relatively ineffective. I've been supplying worksuits to Salmon Farmers for 4 years and they have a double storm flap down the front zip and still water can get in. Wind, capillary action - if there's an opening water will find a way and there's one hole you can't do anything about and that's where your head comes out :)
What does improve performance somewhat is full length velcro on the storm flap, but that's rare because it makes opening and closing more difficult.
The Berghaus has velcro adjusting wrists, instead of elasticated.
The Berghaus has better pockets.
But in terms of their performance when it's cold, wet and windy, I don't see any difference. I can race in both and have.
My Dare2Be packs tighter, so I tend to decide which I carry based on whether I am with bumbag or backpack.
So to summarise, the better quality products will offer some improvements aesthetically, perhaps in terms of tailoring and also should be better in terms of overall build quality, but in terms of the foul weather protection when you need it, there's nowt in it.
Away from the kit side of this issue I still have concerns about the effectiveness/ability of race monitoring procedures to comply with the rules in the real world. I accept that the requirements are desirable, and that they will be achievable on many occasions. I can not accept that they will be achievable every time. But the rules expect this - they dont say 'except when....' or 'it is recognised that on occasion despite the best efforts of the organiser...' As I understand it they say and mean this MUST be achieved.
I hesitate to mention particular races because I dont want to give the impression (and I certainly dont mean to) that I am criticising the ROs - quite the opposite. Neither am I criticising the committee - I am trying to constructively debate some developing rules that I believe could cause us some problems in the future because they haven't been met because they can not be met. To me it seems obvious - we can probably all think of races we have done where marshalls and CPs are out of touch with the race start. They dont know how many started or how many retired before reaching them and they cant tell control how many have passed though their CP until they get back to the valley or to somewhere with radio or mobile phone coverage. Thats not because of any carelessness or lack of effort by the RO, its just an unavoidable fact. I'm not saying all races are like this but some are and as fellrunners and as the FRA I feel that we should be prepared to accept and acknowledge that within the structure of the rules that we will be judged by in future.
Agree entirely LJQuote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
As we speak the mistlite 130s are in the "waterproof running pants" section of peteblands - intimately linked both with fell running and at least one RO: although the product description is now somewhat lacking , it is reasonable for any purchaser to assume they are good because of the category.
http://www.peteblandsports.co.uk/trolleyed/5/6/121/130/
So there is certainly potential for massive confusion. I would have happily have bought those as fit for purpose, till just by accident noticing this thread.
Mmmm. I have been pondering for months. Suppose my very expensive 1 week old Gortex cag with integrated hood, stormflap and taped seams has 2 small holes in it. Each hole is 2mm in diameter. One hole is just on the cuff but the other is on the shoulder.
What should I do ?
Keep your arm below shoulder height.Quote:
Originally Posted by mapper
Then any rain that enters the top hole will flow out at the bottom
Very well said, spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Do you really think that the FRA Committee believe that issuing a document is all that is required, and that they are not working on methods of giving practical workable support to RO based on that document?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
I'm sure they are and I'm sure that in many if not most cases it will be achievable but I strongly suspect there will still be occasions where it wont, in spite of the best efforts of all concerned. Its what happens then that worries me - not that I might not be monitored round a race but that the race might not exist because as it stands the RO would have to accept from the outset that his/her race didn't comply - and as runners we would probably all be totally happy competing in it regardless of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
So you want a race to be run under FRA/UKA Rules and insurance even it can't comply with those rules just because the runners are happy to take part. Presumably in the event of a serious incident, you wouldn't be happy that the RO may be left to face the law of the land on his/her own, and without insurance that now proves to be invalid and personally liable for any claims. That's the context and reality we face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
I nearly fell off my chair laughing then Grumps.. you using Khamsins quote insulting people sniping from anonymity....Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Brilliant..
Lets all just link to our power of 10 profiles? what else? I'm quite clearly who I am, ML, international runner. Contrary to belief it is in fact Ok, no further healthy, for people to hold different views.. even from the anonymous Grumps..
That was a classic by you there.. I'm off for a lunch with a smile on my face thanks!
I suspect the next piece of advice will be that all RO's should become limited companies to restrict their liabilities in the same way the FRA and several running clubs have done.
The link to the new rules on the homepage is broken.
I suspect races will simply be abandoned. It would be the only way to restrict liabilities in "the context and reality we face".Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Fell running is safe.. http://www.ratracemanvsmountain.com/ Supposedly the Grump is RO... Breezey's idea.. remove liability risk by making 1 mill per race..Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
I don't follow you Iain???Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Fully commercial races.. that was 150 per runner.. late entry price.. and supposedly they never had permission from landowners so its now threatening actual fell races in the area..Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
Does anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
:confused:Clarification... Without reading the entire thread, I had the impression that new rules have been discussed then adopted that demand waterproof rather than just windproof body cover and more rigorous use of race numbers.
Fine if true.
But In clicking on the home page I find these safety rules
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com...quirements.pdf
Still saying windproof under equipment
So question.
Are the new rules adopted now, if so where are they? Or is this still at discussion stage?
Just trying to understand where we are now, and what (other than common sense dictates) I need to take to pass a kit check for the remainder of 2013 on.
:confused::confused::confused:
The new 2014 Safety Requirements (version dated 1st September 2013) were approved nemine contradicente by the full FRA Committee on 1st September 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
They have been circulated to all other 6 fell running bodies (ie SHR, WFRA, BOFRA, NIMRA,...)- all of whom were invited to comment on earlier drafts-, UKA and they were issued to the Coroner at the Inquest touching the death of Brian Belfield.
It's done.
RO will have to implement them for 2014 to gain FRA Registration (and thereby race insurance).
The FRA Committee is planning workshops from next month to explain those areas that require interpretation, share best practice, etc.
Links on the FRA website are not my territory but, be assured, as the great Robert says: "things have changed".
before the grump comes along...Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
There were links earlier in the thread but I they don't work now.
However this one does.
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com...fety_Rules.pdf
looking at the date it's now active and will appear in next hand book.
I still can't get in to my head why people want to take kit that will "just pass" kit check. Not aimed at you AI but a general observation
Beaten to it by Graham. :)
For when the weather is fairly good and you want to be as light as possible, although in worse weather you definitely need a plan BQuote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Thanks Graham and Ian.
A sticky thread on this site without comments allowed, linking "new rules adopted" and the relevant appendices would be useful.
Ian - You inserted the word "just" into "just pass"Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Maybe you are seeing words that are not implied in what people say?
I used the phrase "other than common sense dictates" for example in bad weather I always carry a spare pair of gloves and balaclava in the bottom of a pack. So easy to lose a glove or a hat.
Thanks for posting the document link: I note that document does not self stand It for example refers an appendix on "hypothermia" which is not contained, and the link to it does not work. I assume all the above will be put on the website FRA links ASAP.
A worrying observation:
It is all a bit woolly in legal terms as to what obligations "must" fall on which parties, and what their actions or responses should be, in many places. It would give one of those worms of a claims lawyers a field day in twisting words to blame all and sundry. Not a discussion I want to open, except in as far as some issues impact me.
I wanted to know what the rules now define as "waterproof" in order to check the kit I have. The document is not prescriptive beyond stating "marketed as waterproof"
An observation I have already made, which should ring alarm bells:
The much maligned mistlite 130 are still in category "waterproof" on peteblands site - just click through to mens waterproof lower clothing - , so are therefore "marketed as waterproof" , and therefore apparently meet FRA rules as they are laid down.
See here.
http://www.peteblandsports.co.uk/trolleyed/5/6/121/130/
Precise wording is important, in the event of later problems. The document should probably say "marketed by the manufacturer as waterproof" but that in itself does not cure the problem, since most people rely on the information given on the retailers site (indeed they are the ones consumers have recourse against) and if you cannot trust peteblands who can you? I would urge PB to put them in a different section, if they are no longer applicable.
http://www.inov-8.com/New/Global/Pro...Shell-210.html
I think it would be best to go off what the manufacturer states.
Quite often a manufacture will claim a standard and the retailer will usually adopt that or be over cautious. In the past I've sold waterproof footwear to Clarks but they were happy to claim water resistant, which made life easier for them.
I think PB perhaps have made an error in the description of this product as the manufacturers don't claim waterproof.
Although perhaps Inov-8 should consider whether or not they claim conformity with FRA Rules as it depends which rules for which races and it also rules are prone to change and review.
I did say it wasn't aimed at you, but I do read into many posts "will this pass"? meaning that there may be some dispute, as if to say what can I choose that will pass that's as light as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I've moved in to 3 layer goretex from my Kamilika as I feel the cold more now? not sure why. I'm happier with that.
I'll PM you in a minute with some observations
Along with race Registration forms,insurance information etc race organisers have now been sent a copy of the " new rules " and the draft has been available for everyone to look at and comment on for some time. My hope is that everyone agrees to comply with the rules rather than seek to get around them in some way. They should certainly help most race organisers enforce the safety aspect and hopefully most competitors will accept them in the spirit in which they have been written i.e. For their own safety.
There is no doubting the motives of the FRA in revising the rules nor the expertise of the people who drafted them.
Fell running though is a safe sport. Whilst 1 fatality is too many, considering the number of events/races held each year, the nature of the terrain, adverse weather etc and the severity of the sport to my knowledge there have only been a handful of fatalities ( I have been unfortunate to have been running in 3 of those races ! )whether the " new rules " may have prevented any of those fatalities is debatable we shall never know but if life and limb can be saved in the future I'm all for it.