New safety rules

[Rob Furness]

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:

1. waterproof (rightly or wrongly)
2. and meeting FRA requirements

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.

[LissaJous]

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.

I said rightly or wrongly. A lot of shops sold them as 'waterproof', and a lot of runners have considered them 'waterproof' kit.
Read the equipment thread here, or for example this from http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/forum/...st/132796.html

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

Or this http://www.usedwalsall.co.uk/classif...-pant_22351439

Fell running 'waterproof' trousers
Had to buy for a 'kit list' for a particular event-pack down very small

I am saying that a lot of people have the perception that they are 'waterproof' so will believe that they meet the new requirements.

And don't bother me again until you've actually read the thread in 'equipment'...

[Rob Furness]

And don't bother me again until you've actually read the thread in 'equipment'...

Charming :closed:

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.

[LissaJous]

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!

[Witton Park]

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.

[Mark G]

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.

[alwaysinjured]

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,

Agree entirely LJ

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.

[mapper]

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 ?

[XRunner]

One hole is just on the cuff but the other is on the shoulder.

What should I do ?

Keep your arm below shoulder height.
Then any rain that enters the top hole will flow out at the bottom

[Richard123]

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.

Very well said, spot on.