I'd just eliminate the term windproof and go for waterproof - saves all the debate.
Printable View
I'd just eliminate the term windproof and go for waterproof - saves all the debate.
" 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 follow this argument to it's logical conclusion there would never be any place for windproof kit - clearly many, including the powers that be in the FRA, disagree.
A simple and effective solution. Fully agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
In some ways the logic of fell race rules is that waterproofs/windproofs are carried in case you get injured and are then put on to keep you warmer while you're inactive. Reality is that most people who run in the hills alot will always wear clothing to try and suit the weather or put it on if its needed, especially so when running solo. In fell races though there's alot of not being willing to lose places and/or time by putting on the extra kit, meaning that runners can actually have all the kit and meet all the kit requirements but choose to get very cold and wet rather than apply some common sense. These people will obviously benefit from putting on their waterproof/windproofs if they get injured but could be too cold by that point for the extra layers to make much difference. At the same time I wear both my waterproof and my windproof while out running, sometimes purposely one over the other and sometimes whimsically, but I never lose sight of how hot they might be making me underneath (and yep I sweat more in my waterproof) and how that sweat, were I have to stop, might rapidly cool and cool me down regardless. There is no simple answer but, were you to actually have to stop while in a race, there's agood chance that your waterproofs/windproofs won't add a great deal to your safety anyway, whether you are carrying the right kit or indeed wearing it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Just an (admittedly) unhelpful point :) :)
Oh I see, the seams are taped when you buy it. DOH! You don't have to send me to DQ gear prison after all.
Spot on... I think few seem to understand just how much time a thin shell would give you...sitting down and waiting for help is a risky choice.. even with minor breaks just keep going, get to a marshall, or get off the hill ASAP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
It's a shame you weren't there to explain this to the bloke who so selfishly 'chose' to inconvenience the MRT at Langdale this year - nevermind the fact that you can see the inside of your knee joint, just keep going because that's less risky. Brilliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
That's one the spellchecker wouldn't pick up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
I'm with you on this one IainR. Part of the attraction of fell running is learning to take responsibility for yourself in challenging conditions. I dont want to be told what sort of full body cover I should choose but I agree that for the general 'safe' running of the event, a full body cover notice should be in place if needed. As you point out, the wind v water proof argument is largely specious and I don't think RO's should be put in the position of making the distinction. Like I say, as it stands, I think the FRA position on this is the best of a contentious situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
brilliant. So he'd got help.. he knew the situation.. how much time he had to wait... he didn't wait in vane hope..Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimm Trab
I hopped 6 km when a stake went through my calf in a remote valley in NZ. I knew waiting it out was a long long wait and reckoned I could hop that in 3 hrs.
You weigh up the situation..is staying less risky than dieing of hypothermia...