Did you get fra discount
Printable View
Did you get fra discount
LOL Funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
wish I'd run 14 miles over the hills today with or without waterproofs (actually a sunny day in Ambleside) but had to make do with the inside of an office.
- My suggestion is that we need to agree two simple definitions of kit - ie windproof and waterproof.
Mark G, i agree that it would be great if we could do this but i suspect that it is quite tricky as different manufacturers make different claims as to the relative "waterproofness" (if that's a word) of the fabrics used e.g. waterproof, rainproof, showerproof etc. Going down the route of the FRA specifying one manufacturer over another as X is more waterproof than Y i think would cause even more of an uproar.
Although i think we could probably all agree that taped seams are essential if you want to call anything truly waterproof.
Is banging your head against the shed door part of your training routine Daz?
Hang on, to my knowledge I've never taped a seam in my waterproofs. Does this mean I've been illegal all these races?????? AAAAAARRRRGGHHH Someone tell me it's not just me! And send me to prison double quick.
Tried that, still can't keep up with him....................and the shed door's knackered:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
It's not necessarily the manufacturers. I supply a UK brand with a waterproof snow boot that is marketed around Europe and Canada as waterproof butthe UK brand chose to call it water resistant as it cuts down the amount of returns from mail order and internet sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellwalker
My first waterproofs / windproofs when I took up fell running were from Outdoor Action and were £20 for the jacket and £15 for the pants. Taped seams, waterproof.
As such they were also windproof.
I personally wouldn't touch windproof - you get wet in them and you freeze.
There's plenty of waterproof options about for any budget - if you can't be bothered, don't turn up at a fell race.
I've since moved on to a Berghaus waterproof jacket that packs well and is comfortable to race in - I've ran a few races in it from start to finish. Still use the same trousers though.
Got a MacPac full waterproof taped seams hood etc - £9 from the Co-Op. It's better than the £85 Gucci jacket I got for training/posing in!
I am surprised at how warm my windproof Montane top keeps me - despite being "wet". Even in waterproof kit you get wet eventually - even if it is just from sweat - but if you can keep the wind off it stops evaporation which helps to stop you getting cold. The Montane top is much more packable than the Haglofs Oz I use when waterproof is needed, though the latter is undoubtedly superior when out for a long time. My partner had a MacPac - not clear if it was the same type - fell to pieces in no time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I agree, this is where it gets tricky. Trying to be too proscriptive will ends in tears. The threads on the OMM forum about this would, if laid end to end, go to Neptune and back 3 times!
The whole idea about rules in fell running should be to introduce some common sense minimum requirements without being too intrusive and certainly not demeaning the 'intelligence' of an experienced runner (whilst still protecting the inexperienced from themselves).
Personally, after 25 years of fell running I think I have a fairly good idea about what to carry and when. I would be pretty hacked off if some kit 'inspector' tried arguing that, in his opinion, my choice of my PB fell suit was wrong because its not waterproof on that particular day. Waterproof is generally horrible for running. About the only conditions I would wear that would be in something like that memorable Edale race a few years back.....about 1% of all the events I have done. I think the FRA committee is wise not to have proscribed on this so far but I wonder how long it can hold this line....forever I hope.
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...
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...
I know one shouldn't talk about qualifications on an FRA forum but outdoor first aid quals, which I hold to work as an ML, is all about escaping the cold and getting the casualty down ASAP. One of the core messages is its the cold that kills, not the ankle.. so if a casualty can keep moving, keep moving... the message is quite different from standard urban first aid situations when one can rely on help within minutes...Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
One of the advantages of windproof kit is that you are actually more likely to wear it - and therefore avoid getting cold - in the context of a race it is so much easier to take out of and particularly put back into your bumbag. Being cold of course increases the risk of falls/navigational errors/poor decision making, and therefore getting even colder - though most of the time nothing "bad" happens. Where required by the RO and/or where the conditions look dodgy I do carry waterproof kit - with hood and taped seams, as well as a hat and gloves, but not a balaclava! Whole body cover does not actually mean whole body cover!
I cannot see the purpose of windproof. It's like water resistant - it means very little in my book. Perhaps handy on a clear blue sky at times as you get the wind on the tops but my waterproof does the same as the windproof + more.
We are not like walkers with poles, accessorising. This is safety kit, we can carry limited kit, so I would always go for waterproof jacket.
I always have waterproof with me and with good reason - I'm not the most experienced, but I've done 2 races in the Howgills where 16C in Sedbergh and clear skies became around 8C, wind and rain on the tops and had similar at Fairfield a few years ago.
In both cases I was delighted that I had a waterproof jacket with me and it has no consequences in terms of weight and packability.
At the FRA Relays in Ennerdale I ran the whole NAV leg in the jacket and it was perfect - I'd have really struggled in a windproof.
The debates on the merits of windproof v. waterproof, getting off the hill as a priority, taking all kit to a race, seeking clarification from the RO are all constructive. However, in race registration this year, I have heard dozens of runners ask "Do I need to take kit?" not, "What sort of kit do you want me to carry?" In most cases the weather was poor, or deteriorating. How do we educate this potentially dangerous minority (as in putting RO insurance and license at risk, endangering fellow competitors, marshals, and even MRT). They seem to lack basic common sense and knowledge. It takes little effort to study the rules, or research safety in the hills. If it takes a ban to prevent them continually putting others and the sport at risk, then so be it.
I've never been asked for those at a kit check!:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
Most of the debate seems a bit more constructive than usual. I totally agree about the level of safety that waterproofs provide - they aren't a magic bit of kit that will keep you alive until the MR find you, and I think there is sometimes a false assumption that carrying or using them will keep you safe. A lot of this might be semantics but I suspect that if we ever are unfortunate enough to have another death in the sport those same semantics could be picked over at length by a group of highly paid lawyers with 20/20 hindsight and no comprehension of what fell running is actually about and if we can do something to avoid that situation then so much the better.
It should be simple and thats why I hoped some simple agreements would clarify things. I've done kit checks - I've been asked if its OK not to take overtrousers because I have a bivi blanket (easy), my cag hasn't got a hood but I've got a wooly hat is that OK? (bit harder) and I've heard a very experienced runner explaining why they didn't need to carry overtrousers because they always ran in tracksters or tights (I've no idea but I suspect this isn't what the rules intended). I've seen 20 year old PB suits passed off as waterproof and the same cag accepted by one checker and rejected by another - Its not a perfect system, which should be news to nobody and we are all human and make mistakes or have different opinions.
We will never agree on the windproof or waterproof debate, I think it will always remain a matter for personal choice - and long may it stay that way. But I really hope we can sort out the doubt that surrounds some races about what the organiser actually wants us to carry - not what you, me or Joe Bloggs thinks is appropriate based on our ever so many years of experience or undoubted wisdom and common sense but what the bloke (or lady) who has actually gone to the bother of arranging this race on our behalf would actually like us to take.
The ending up in court bit could well happen. Back in the late 90's a mountaineering guide was taken to court by the wife of a client who had died when the guide and him were climbing in the Alps. The guide had made a decision that may have led to the clients death but the decision was made to avoid and even greater potential threat in the form of rockfall. Myself and many experienced mountaineers i spoke to felt the guides decision was correct but in court the prosecution expert stated that it was the wrong decision, the judge found in favour of the prosecution and the guide was found to be negligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
So a case could be brought by a relative of a runner who has died in a race even though the runner themselves was experienced and accepted the risks (and not a novice who hadn't bothered to learn read the rules) and the RO could end up in court trying to defend their definition of windproof/waterproof. Obviously, we all hope that this scenario never happens but it shows that while it may be as Mark G said might just be semantics and everyone contributing to this debate is pretty much in agreement, it only takes a differing opinion in the right context for there to be serious consequences.
He did say minor breaks, and he is actually correct. If you can move, you get off the hill unless help has reached you or you're 100% that help are on the way and know how long they will take. If you can't move then obviously there's not much you can do but hope for the best as it sounds was the situation for the guy with the serious knee injury. MRT do a very good job and are always appreciated, but in an ideal world I would sooner be rescued from the tamest environment I could drag myself to rather than rely on them reaching me in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimm Trab
Windproof kit is actually excellent. I have a featherlite marathon jacket and the great thing about it is that it keeps you warm even when soaking wet (providing you're moving) and because it's much more breathable than a waterproof jacket I can run in it much more comfortably and tend to don it much sooner than I would a full waterproof. I wouldn't expect to use it in poor weather, nor in a race calling for a waterproof, but neither would I dismiss it completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
That's really the crux isn't it. Kit talk is all very good, but if you can't choose suitable kit yourself judging by the conditions then it's likely that all the kit rules in the world won't make you safe. However, the problem still stands of accidentally falling foul of a kit check because your opinion of waterproof is different to somebody else's. I tend to carry a H2O jacket for waterproof, but have a cheap fully waterproof cag in the back of the car in the event that somebody think's that isn't waterproof enough. I know what I feel safe with.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
This was the point I was trying to make last night. The link I put to a jacket that I was allegedly going to buy was waterproof, taped seams, but no hood, yet still the debate ends up simply "wear what the organiser says". For the first time in a long time the debate has featured what I think is the right answer several times, but frequently in the past it's not been obvious based on peoples answer to the question. Waterproof jacket and trousers with taped seams and a hood. That plus hat, gloves, compass, map and whistle. I'm not saying that if you carry this kit you'll stay safe, but I reckon you'd be hard done by if you didn't pass a kit check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Furness
Just need to agree how many jelly babies now.... :w00t:
I can pretty much understand where all points of view are coming from on this one but i'd like to add my 10p if thats ok.
For what its worth I was a walker first and as such was taught that self preservation was paramount. I now work and run with members of Wasdale MRT who stress that this message cannot be repeated enough. They spend a lot of manhours rescuing people who are inadequately equipped, be it through the lack of a torch, map, compass, knowledge or warm clothing. They often comment how fell runners really get this one in that self preservation is key.
However I get the impression that whilst this is true for a reccie or a trot out, races seem to attract a different mindset. Is 30 seconds off your time really worth losing the extra weight of carrying the right kit for you to be safe ? (And please note I made no reference to what the RO requires, this is about what you NEED in the event of an incident). If an MRT is faffing about getting an ill equipped runner off the fells they may be in no position to assist someone with far greater injuries on another fell. The same is true for walkers I know but do we really want to push the limits of safety too far? We're supposed to be the hardy peeps of the fells after all and in a position where we can assist others (thats my view anyway).