Printable View
Blinking heck! This debate was rolling along in much the same manner when i started out four years ago. After reading about what was needed i bought a set of Kamleikas. These should last for ever as i have only worn the smock once for a couple of hours during the OMM and once on a training run and the pants once on the bike. In my opinion, if you go for this sort of option (waterproof, taped seams and hood), you are covered for every eventuality.
and there you go... simple isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by skennaugh
If you want to splash out and have a lighter wind/weather proof set and shave a few grams on days/races that don't require full waterproofs go for it. Keep the lot in a box along with your bumbag, water bottle, hat/gloves, map, compass, whistle and unopened emergency food and just throw it in the car whenever you go to a race... sorted.
Thats exactly what most of us do, but the issue is sometimes that although common sense and experience may indicate windproofs are fine for his or her own peace of mind the RO may prefer to specify waterproofs - unless they clearly say so the danger is that you will breach their rules without intending to. And if they ask for wind/waterproof do they mean either or both? I didn't expect the FRA to name particular makes/models of kit, I was thinking more along the lines of windproof full body cover means ' pertex or similar trousers and cag with hood' and waterproof means 'waterproof trousers and cag with hood and taped seams' and do away with all the wind/waterproof discussions once and for all, but that would perhaps be a triumph of optimism over experience. I'm as fed up with this as anyone but if we could get it sorted then maybe it will go away. Or is everyone happier just to fudge the rules a bit and argue about it when someone gets disqualified or worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
Buy a waterproof jacket with a hood and taped seams buy some trousers with taped seams put them in a bumbag with a map, compass, whistle, hat, gloves, and a mars bar and bring it to a race. How hard is that? I reckon most eight-year-old kids could grasp it.
These arguments about semantics are boring and pathetic. If you don't know what full waterproof/windproof body cover means, you shouldn't be allowed out on your own let alone in a fell race. People have DIED fell running.
This my "waterproof gets wet from sweat and my windproof is keeps me warm when I'm running in the rain argument" is bobbins. Your waterproof won't be wet from sweat when you lying in a bog waiting for mountain rescue to pick you up or struggling down from a mountain on the edge of hypothermia will it? I doubt a damp windproof will save your life either.
If you can't grasp the rules play golf or something. Eventually someone else will die, the Daily Mail will pick up the story and our laid back sport will be ruined forever all because some idiot couldn't get the words "full waterproof body cover" through their thick skull.
I fully expect my waterproofs (H2Os) to last for ever. I have worn the jacket once in four years for a training run and the bottoms once when I forgot my shorts. I live in the N lakes and tend to use a windproof and occasionally a cheap (£12) pertex smock over that if it gets wetter. I consider them as safety equipment that I carry in races and hope I won't need.
The recent waterproof thread got me thinking I should get something better but then I realised the above.
But isn't that what 99.9% of people do take it to mean? I know that my four pieces of clothing, waterproof taped trousers/smock with hood and windproof trousers/smock with hood will pass any kit check (including IDP's Edale Skyline one)... If a simpleton like myself can manage it without tying myself in knots, anyone can. If you're going to race, buy kit that you know will meet kit checks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
I'm sorry, but I don't know what "waterproof / windproof" means. I do know what I am comfortable carrying and that is usually a waterproof. The rules are clear, windproof full body cover, but if the RO wants to specify waterproof if that weather is bad, that is fine but please make it clear otherwise you can't DQ people for not complying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan
In my opinion Langdale this year required waterproofs but as "windproof/waterproof" was on the info board presumably windproof was all that was required to pass kit check. I don't have an issue with this but simply crossing out either windproof or waterproof (which I presume was the intention) would have removed all doubt.
You can't DQ someone for not being "sensible", although in some cases maybe you should.
Talking of the press. Many years ago some dickhead mates of mine got stuck in Oxlow when they pulled the ropes before checking they could get through the connection. The press reported that they awaited rescue "huddled together under a spare blanket" presumably taken from the airing cupboard. (rather than space blanket)
I am confident that we all think we know exactly what it means but I am equally confident that it will mean different things to different people and I think thats the root of the problem. To me it means either/or, to some it will mean both. Most of us are capable of using common sense and all of us think we are but this discussion rapidly gets subverted - for me it arises from a fairly common situation, a lovely settled warm day in the lakes on a long or medium race, many of us would prefer to take windproofs, if the organiser would prefer us to take our full waterproofs which most of us have brought along anyway thats fine, just please tell us. Most people dont need to be told this if the weather is less good, but sadly some people obviously do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan
I'm not into all this vetting of runners...as it is have you completed the 3 AM's/AL's is a box ticking exercise anyway... you just wait for good days and jog behind people like most do..
Most runners can't navigate anyway..
There has always been novices in the sport, its an adult event. Just a simple few statements, like you would at a climbing wall... 'can you tie in' YN etc...
You aren't assessed... just simple statements to Y/N... just do the same for racing.. 'can you calculate and run on a bearing'... 'can you read a map to sufficient ability to navigate the route'... 'do you have the apropriate gear (X,Y,Z)'...
I think vetting is actually opening up organisers for liability should an accident happen to a runner they have vetted competent...
At the moment the organiser takes too much responsibility. Look at the peris, shortened because the organiser thought those at the back of the field couldn't have coped...It should be on the runners. there's too much passing the blame. If you as an adult say you can cope and you can't... tough..it's fine for climbing and the professionally run BMC (which we all know is light years ahead of the FRA in terms of dealing with risk in outdoor pursuits).. I'm not using the term extreme sports... the only people I know who use that term are incompetent... hence why its extreme to them..
I don't think not having gear is that common anyway, but its pretty obvious when people don't. But we've all stuffed two jackets in when we have forgotten bottoms and just pulled out the material...
All this banning lark... its the FA all over again.... TBh you'd just race WFRA, SHR, BOFRA, Road, XC, Ultra's etc, so all it creates is more anymosity... when a simple bit of education would suffice...