Shovels tested...Results predictable

Just saw this linked at wildsnow.com, and don't remember seeing it here.

FWIW the test claims to be independent, but the article is hosted by Voile.

http://www.voile-usa.com/AvalancheVol86_54-60.pdf

Edit: in case Voile removes the article or you don't want to read the article. The T6 aluminum shovels, Voile Telepro T6, XLM, XLM Pro, and the G3 AviTECH D-Grip were all given the highest marks.

All other shovels tested had some kind of major blade deformation or failure.

The BD Transfer 7 received the worst review, and was basically totaled, as was the Peips pro.

The Ortovox Grizzley and Alaska, and Mammut Expert had significant blade damage.

The shaft of the BCA Chugach Pro EXT was bent in the test.

The other shovel tested a Stubai, had the locking pins fail and blade deformation.

Good review. Wish they had tested my Ortovox Expert but certainly makes me question the BD T7 I have in my light pack.

After hearing Manuel Genswein speak at ISSW, I'd have to say that he is kind of a kook. Judging from the many sneers and snickers coming from the crowd, it's likely I'm not alone on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalefish3169

After hearing Manuel Genswein speak at ISSW, I'd have to say that he is kind of a kook. Judging from the many sneers and snickers coming from the crowd, it's likely I'm not alone on this one.

---

That may be the case. It seems they may have been pounding on the shovels a bit more then is realistic in a rescue situation. The comment about damaging boots while stepping on the top of the blade made me wonder.

What I took away from it was that the T6 aluminum is much tougher then the competition.

I've never heard anyone recommending stomping on the blade repeatedly as a shoveling technique in a rescue situation. Obviously avy debris can be very hard and you gotta do what it takes in a rescue, but I doubt that the amount of stomping described is realistic.

But I did buy my AviTech because it seemed bombproof, which this apparently confirms.

sketchy to me that their shovels rate the best and they omit pictures of them.

What a crock. Nothing more than marketing. It's clear that the write up is well thought out. Put all the bad competitor reviews first, and then save the "saviour" Voile reviews right to the end so the excellent performance is fresh in the mind of the reader. If there was no damage at all, then put the pictures in to proove it. Also, the lack of cons in the Voile shovel is suspicious. There are cons to everything.

I had a Voile shovel with a built in saw. The p.o.s. pins fell out. I have a buddy that has a Voile shovel with a similar problem too.

Did anyone else notice the CAA logo on the bottom left of each page and the CAC News text in the header? Looks like a reprint from somewhere.

ive got the voile with the probe that goes inside... decent size probe too, i think its 9'. good to know that they are durable

You supposedly have one but you needed someone else to tell you how durable it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickwm21

ive got the voile with the probe that goes inside... decent size probe too, i think its 9'. good to know that they are durable

---

It is widely agreed upon that the probes that pack into shovel shafts are no substitute for a quality probe. Similarly, ski pole probes are junk too. That being said, they are better than nothing. You should think about upgrading. I'm sure your ski partners would appreciate it.

BCA started the trend of better marketing through "research papers." Voile is just continuing...

^yes.

.......

Adding something useful to the topic:

I had this shovel a few seasons ago, dug about 50 pits. The shaft clean snapped where the nipple holes attach it to the blade. Hacking at a very hard layer. http://en.ortovox.com/safety_product...al_alu_ii.html

I have the old version of this shovel, dug about 150 pits with it and no damage at all (I have the older grey version minus the flashy graphics)
http://en.ortovox.com/safety_product...ls/alaska.html

Quote:

---

The same is true for plastic shovels. They usually break in cold temperatures
and hard debris before the first buried subject can be excavated

---

what about Lexan? although metal rocks.
so, my transfer 3...? Honestly it seems bomb proof, but then again, it's more of a side-country shovel. In which case you'd only have a Vibram toe and heel, so no shredding.
I agree that it's sketchy they didn't put in a pick of their own shovels. They could have at least showed them all scratched up to lend some credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

what about Lexan? although metal rocks.
so, my transfer 3...? Honestly it seems bomb proof, but then again, it's more of a side-country shovel.

---

Try cutting through some woody debris with that plastic blade sometime and see what happens.

And telling yourself that lesser gear is ok because you're only skiing side-country is a serious oversight.

Be careful out there!

Didn't a plastic shovel break during rescue efforts following the SME/La Traviata avalanche in 2003?

http://www.telemarktips.com/TeleNews69.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalefish3169

Try cutting through some woody debris with that plastic blade sometime and see what happens.

And telling yourself that lesser gear is ok because you're only skiing side-country is a serious oversight.

Be careful out there!

---

I understand completely, and I have a metal shovel. I have yet to ski any back and side country, I just have a safety kit. No skins or AT gear. I'm poor and a total wanabe. :(

I had no idea you were supposed to step on the blade like a dirt diggin shovel.

I could see that causing some failures. They fucked up those first few shovels pretty bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hohes

I had this shovel a few seasons ago, dug about 50 pits. The shaft clean snapped where the nipple holes attach it to the blade. Hacking at a very hard layer. http://en.ortovox.com/safety_product...al_alu_ii.html

---

I just bought this shovel last year, seems alright so far... better than the plastic one I had previous. Just sucks to hear it snapped in that fashion. Any warnings before the break?

The article was widely published (e.g., both AAA's TAR in addition to CAA).
The article did make some good points about matching shaft strength with blade size.
And I was reassured to know that the relatively diminutive Voile shovels in my quiver are sufficiently strong.
Plus I was glad to see someone independently testing shovel durability -- I think a small backcountry.com review is the only such test I've ever seen, and it didn't even attempt to simulate actual digging stresses. ("Because I don’t have a cool oscillating machine to test each shovel, I came up with my own method of simulating a year of vigorous use. I froze the shovels overnight, parked the front tire of my truck on the blade, put a five-foot pipe in the handle slot, and reefed on them until they fractured. Of course, you’d never put this much stress on a shovel in real life, but it did help distinguish the burly shovels from the weaker ones. The handles were also frozen and positioned in space between two pieces of wood. Using Rutschblock Test guidelines (standing, bouncing, and jumping), each handle broke with a big jump; there was no notable strength difference between brands.")

Otherwise, that's about it for anything positive that can be said about this article. I'll leave the detailed critique up to a letter from BD, with incorporated quotes from other companies, reproduced in its entirety below:

****

January 13, 2009

Subject: Recent European Shovel Review.

A few of you have brought up this shovel review conducted in Europe by the Austrian Alpine Club (published in Europe by Bergundsteigen) and I want share my thoughts on why we disagree with both the objective and the results, as well as share what some other shovel manufacturers are saying about this flawed test.

Just two years ago in Europe we were credited with bringing improved safety and reliability to avalanche shovels by bringing to market metal shovels that competed with the popular plastic models without compromising weight or cramping space. Reviews were stellar. In the attached shovel report carried out by Manuel Genswein and Ragnhild Eide of the Austrian Alpine Club, a seemingly non-existent bar was raised to which our shovel and our competitors’ models were benchmarked to ditch-digging type of utilitarian shovels.

In our view, the technique used in the test involving hammering down with ski boots onto the back edge of the shovels is only used for and should only be used for, dead body recovery. We have questioned several seasoned professional patrollers about this technique just to be sure, and none of them have ever dug in a rescue search in the manner described in this test. Most commonly, rescuers are down on their knees chopping and shoveling very quickly. Digging with feet in a rescue scenario is very dangerous for a buried victim and such a test advocates and promotes an unusual, dangerous method.

We concur with these official statements about the test by other avalanche shovel manufacturers:

Pieps: “Basically you can destroy any piece of equipment, if you want…The strike with your foot method is dangerous for the victim…For this test to use this method and call it correct blade use is dangerous to publish…Such articles contribute to unjustified insecurity for many alpinists and are not consistent with the information and knowledge with which this journal has become popular.”

Ortovox: “…We believe that so-called tests like the one…by Manuel Genswein and Ragnhild Eide only create uncertainty for consumers…. The results of this test are not comprehensible.”

In an extreme case, when there is a very big avalanche that’s packed so cement-solid that avalanche rescue shovels would break when pounded on by boots, rescue crews are using steel bladed, wood handled shovels to dig out dead bodies. This is not what our shovels are designed to do. They are not for digging ditches in glaciers. They are for snow pit and avalanche emergencies, they are rapid response tools. With this in mind, we’ve designed our shovels for optimal snow volume capacity, ease and quickness of deployment, ergonomics, lightweight, and strength (within parameters of safe and realistic use).

Several of these other design points were brought up in the test and here’s a little information on each:

Grip design: Modern versions of the T grip handle like ours with rounder, ergonomic shaping were complimented in the article “except for rescuers with small hands”. Just like glove fitting, there is such a wide range of hand sizes and shapes that it’s impossible to cover the whole range in one design. We did a lot of testing when designing our shovel grip, including a range of smaller hands and created our grip to fit the widest range. The advantage of an ergonomic T grip over a D grip, are many. T grips fit better in packs than D grips. D grips that are carried on the outside of packs are dangerous as they can get caught on objects such as tree branches. While shoveling, T grips offer far more control to the grip hand where D grips, because they can rotate in the hand, offer little control making the shaft hand do all the control work.

Blade shape: The back edge of our shovels is not designed to be smashed on by boots. It is designed to hold and move a lot of snow, quickly. Shovels in the test that did well with boots, which have a flatter back edge design, simply do not hold the volume of snow that our shovels do, which we find, in normal rescue digging situations, to be most important.

Shaft shape: Our Trapezoidal shaft shape was found to “…exhibit more resistance while mounting, removing or adjusting the length, but will not waste time aligning the push-pin with the extension hole”. When it comes to quick deployment, we’ve found that pin alignment during extension is far more important than the very slight resistance one may feel over a round shaft while extending. When every second counts, the importance between these two things is not even comparable.

In the criteria mentioned above, we are the best on the market and we will continue to create shovels with these criteria in mind, which we feel best cater to the true needs of rescuers, not for the very extreme, dangerous, subjective, and unusual criteria of this latest magazine test.

Thanks for reading our response and passing it along to anyone concerned.

Tor Brown
Black Diamond Equipment
Product Line Manager - Ski Category

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chowda

The BD Transfer 7 received the worst review, and was basically totaled [...]

---

Note that this is primarily (or maybe even only) because the testers were stomping on the top edge of the blade. So much different durability for anyone who abstains from such a practice (which is probably 100% of BD Transfer 7 owners).

Also, just noticed the earlier thread here on this:
[ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148908"]Genswein Shovel Test - Teton Gravity Research Forums[/ame]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalefish3169

It is widely agreed upon that the probes that pack into shovel shafts are no substitute for a quality probe.

---

The BCA Companion Probe is very short and potentially tricky to assemble. Fortunately, BCA will finally be discontinuing it this fall upon the debut of their new Arsenal line of shovels with integrated probe or saw.

The Voile probe that can fit inside one of their shovels looks pretty decent though:
http://www.voile-usa.com/Merchant2/m...roduct_Count=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

Didn't a plastic shovel break during rescue efforts following the SME/La Traviata avalanche in 2003?

http://www.telemarktips.com/TeleNews69.html

---

According to the March '04 Baumann report (yes, quite controversial, but still, the most complete attempted record of the incident):

*****

3. At the accident scene, there were initially only seven survivors available to carry out the rescue. There is no record of whether all of the rescuers had proper dedicated avalanches probes and shovels, and whether they were able to efficiently use their avalanche transceivers to locate the buried victims. Some reports suggest that some of the rescuers only had ski poles to use as probes, and small, less effective plastic shovels. There is also some indication that the rescuers coming down the couloir initially walked over the first two
fully buried victims without picking up a transceiver signal, which suggests that they may not have been effectively using their avalanche transceivers at this time. One client claims that the group received only an hour and a half of transceiver and rescue practice when they arrived at the chalet. It is also not known what brand of transceivers were being used, and whether they were all in good working order.

4. Of the 13 skiers who were caught in the slide, six survived and seven died. There is some inconsistency about how many people were totally buried; most likely eight were fully buried, and five were partially buried. Only one of the eight skiers who were totally buried survived; he was found 280 centimetres down after 30 minutes. According to Larry Stanier’s report to the Coroner, those who died were buried from 130 to 280 cm deep.

Good response by BD...

I generally agree with what BD is saying in their response, in that this article does not disqualify the transfer as an acceptable companion rescue shovel.

Even though I agree, I didn't particularly like the articles statement that plastic shovels are not adequate, nor by extension do I agree with the conclusion that the BD shovel was inadequate. I feel this is more of a group decision, revolving around objectives and levels of acceptable risk.

What the article does illustrate, and BD sort of tip toes through, is that all metal shovels are not equal in strength or tolerance to abuse. Metaphorically, If all things were as simple as it works sufficiently when used properly, there would be no need for things like automotive safety standards, as a properly driven car does not collide with other cars.

Knowing what it took to make a shovel fail, and how that compares to other shovels is reasonably good data to have when deciding what to buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chowda

Knowing what it took to make a shovel fail, and how that compares to other shovels is reasonably good data to have when deciding what to buy.

---

Agreed -- but I wish the failure test in the article was a more extreme (or more sustained form) of the kinds of stresses and usage modes that a typical rescuer might employ, as opposed to the article's protocol (which seems at odds with how almost all rescuers would use a shovel).

where is that nerds guy ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan S.

....
In our view, the technique used in the test involving hammering down with ski boots onto the back edge of the shovels is only used for and should only be used for, dead body recovery. We have questioned several seasoned professional patrollers about this technique just to be sure, and none of them have ever dug in a rescue search in the manner described in this test. Most commonly, rescuers are down on their knees chopping and shoveling very quickly. Digging with feet in a rescue scenario is very dangerous for a buried victim and such a test advocates and promotes an unusual, dangerous method.
...

---

The article in question seems to use "the V-shaped snow conveyor excavation strategy" as method for comparing shovels.
http://beaconreviews.com/transceiver...veyor-Belt.asp

This makes the manufacturers responses quite interesting.

According to BD "several seasoned professional patrollers" have never used "the V-shaped snow conveyor excavation strategy" instead these patrollers are "down on their knees chopping and shoveling very quickly."

Clearly, these patrollers are either ignorant of "the V-shaped snow conveyor excavation strategy" or are just reporting that they have yet to use it.

Any criticism to the shovel-test along the lines of: "Digging with feet in a rescue scenario is very dangerous for a buried victim and such a test advocates and promotes an unusual, dangerous method." seems to imply that Gensweins findings about the "the V-shaped snow conveyor excavation strategy" is either misunderstood or ignored.

And if I were buried I know I would prefer any rescuers to use Gensweins "V-shaped snow conveyor excavation strategy" since any stomping on blades will not be anywhere near the buried and retrieval would be imminent.

here's a quick explanation: http://beaconreviews.com/transceiver...veyor-Belt.asp, this even states "careful work near the buried victim" and have in tests/experiments been much more of a "rapid response tool" than a BD shovel being used carefully so it wont break.

Just a thought.

/rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabbit

According to BD "several seasoned professional patrollers" have never used "the V-shaped snow conveyor excavation strategy" instead these patrollers are "down on their knees chopping and shoveling very quickly."

---

That's your interpretation of the BD letter, not an actual quote from the BD letter.
The actual quote is:
"In our view, the technique used in the test involving hammering down with ski boots onto the back edge of the shovels is only used for and should only be used for, dead body recovery. We have questioned several seasoned professional patrollers about this technique just to be sure, and none of them have ever dug in a rescue search in the manner described in this test."
Clearly BD is referring here to pounding on the top edge of a shovel with a ski boot.
Even setting aside the controversy over the V-shaped method (versus, for example, BCA's strategic shoveling), in the summary article url you reference for the V-shaped method, not a single rescuer (in either the drawings or photographs) is employing the actual digging technique used in the shovel test.
BD also states:
"Most commonly, rescuers are down on their knees chopping and shoveling very quickly."
The two rescuers at the front of the V are indeed crouched low, albeit not quite on their knees.
Furthermore, the V-shaped method is relevant only for a relatively large group of rescuers. For large guided groups in Europe or Canadian hut systems, it might have some major benefits. For backcountry companion groups of four people max, it has no relevance at all.

"And if I were buried I know I would prefer any rescuers to use Gensweins "V-shaped snow conveyor excavation strategy" since any stomping on blades will not be anywhere near the buried and retrieval would be imminent."
-- If anything it would seem to be the other way around: the rescuers in the back of the V are mainly merely "paddling" previously moved snow, so if any rescuers are going to pound on the top edge of the shovel blade, it would be rescuers near the victim.

Here's the entire block of text:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Diamond according to earlier post

In our view, the technique used in the test involving hammering down with ski boots onto the back edge of the shovels is only used for and should only be used for, dead body recovery. We have questioned several seasoned professional patrollers about this technique just to be sure, and none of them have ever dug in a rescue search in the manner described in this test. Most commonly, rescuers are down on their knees chopping and shoveling very quickly. Digging with feet in a rescue scenario is very dangerous for a buried victim and such a test advocates and promotes an unusual, dangerous method.

---

The way I read this; the "seasoned ... patrollers" are indirectly referenced in the next sentence about "digging on their knees".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan S.

Furthermore, the V-shaped method is relevant only for a relatively large group of rescuers. For large guided groups in Europe or Canadian hut systems, it might have some major benefits. For backcountry companion groups of four people max, it has no relevance at all.

---

I think this statement is wrong. Four people digging "conveyor-stylee" or four people digging "without a plan" ?
Ive already stated my choice.

There might be a difference in where youre coming from and what snow you are used to. My first time in Canada i was so stoked about the "deep pow" when the locals didnt even go skiing because "everything was tracked cement and it hadnt been snowing for a month"

Scandinavian snow isnt as easily moved as Canadian (in this example) and I might even think that a lexan shovel would work if I lived there, whereas I know it doesnt in Scandinavia nor in the rest of Europe.

The way I see these articles is that if you trust your pinpoint search there's no problem stepping on shovels close to, but not above and/or directly on, the buried victim.
And then you get a 'real' rapid response by using "the conveyor".

I acknowledge that it might not be " the best way", if there is such a thing, but I do think that the shovel-test and any critique against it should be formulated within any critique against the conveyor method as well.

It seems, to me, like they go hand in hand. But I might be totally off here?

Anyhow. We dont have to agree.

I hope? :cool:

/rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabbit

Four people digging "conveyor-stylee" or four people digging "without a plan" ?

---

I meant (though admittedly I wasn't clear about it) a four-person touring party, with one person buried, and hence three rescuers. In that situation, the V-system seems to be of no use -- well, unless the V comprised one person at the top, with two "paddlers" but that still doesn't seem very useful (though I'm open to being convinced otherwise).
As for a five-person touring party (i.e., if one potential victim then four potential rescuers), that strikes me as a bad idea to begin with.

But anyways, that's not the point. Rather, the point is that I don't see any linkage between the V system and the boot-on-blade-edge digging technique. The V system could be employed without boot-on-blade-edge digging, whereas such digging could be used in phases of strategic shoveling as well as any ad hoc approaches for individuals or teams of rescuers.

The bottomline for me is that although I would like to see a comprehensive shovel strength test, I don't think this one employed a relevant protocol.

And sometimes it feels like the companies marketing these products dont take it seriously.

This blurb from the ortovox website:
"
Teddy Berr, Freeskier on the Pro Alu II
'I get really frustrated when my mates turn up with unprofessional tools, especially when shaping a bigger project in the back country. Hey guys, get yourself a Pro Alu II, it will last longer too!'
"
http://en.ortovox.com/safety_product...al_alu_ii.html

Ive tried a "three man conveyor belt" and felt like it worked pretty good. This was not in a real emergency, just having a go.
I do think that any differences between "conveyor belt", "bca's strategic digging" or any other good example of teamwork that met the demands of the situation, is practically nonexistant.

Thank you, Jonathan S., for all your thoughts, ideas and arguing on this matter and for starting this thread. There's still a lot to learn on the subject, at least for me, and unlike "Teddy Berr, Freeskier" I dont use my shovel to 'shape projects in the backcountry'...

-peace
/rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabbit

"
Teddy Berr, Freeskier on the Pro Alu II
'I get really frustrated when my mates turn up with unprofessional tools, especially when shaping a bigger project in the back country. Hey guys, get yourself a Pro Alu II, it will last longer too!'
"
http://en.ortovox.com/safety_product...al_alu_ii.html

---

I used the previous version of this shovel, the new one looks very similar. I snapped the shaft not once but twice. The service was unhelpful, they would not replace the broken piece. When I told them it broke while I was prying a block out, the person on the phone said, verbatim "Yeah, it will do that ".

The only shovels I've used which have seemed stronger are the voile and G3. The new BD deploy 7 looks like it might be worth a look.

With all the talk of shovels breaking, however, I see very few fail. Probes on the other hand self destruct on command. I kill at least one a year. I realize it's a harder engineering feat to construct a strong quick assembling probe, but there seems to be a few common themes in the ones I've snapped that could be fixed fairly easily.

As for the V shoveling debate, Manuel has always said it was designed to be expandable to as few or as many rescuers that are present. In my own experience this holds true.

Teddy sounds like a really classy act:
http://scottusa.com/team_rider/209/teddy_berr
http://www.amplid.com/misc/tberr.php

I wonder if the user of avy shovels to build kickers etc has brought down prices (via more competition for a bigger market) or brought down quality? (Or both?)

Anyway, although I sometimes almost feel like apologizing for talking about shovels and shoveling when I teach avy courses ("now you can tell all your friends you drove this far for a three-day course to listen to some guy explain how to shovel snow..."), as an economist I find shovel design very interesting from a cost-benefit/tradeoffs perspective. Lighter is better for long backcountry tours, but where to drawn the line at strength? And complicating matters even more, when it comes to blade size and shaft length, bigger & longer are not necessarily better past a certain point, especially for the less muscle-bound among us.

As for probes, see p. 22 here:
http://www.americanavalancheassociat...27_4_LoRes.pdf

For this though, no details about testing protocol. I also wish the notes were more detailed. Comments from companies are supposed to be at http://www.bergundsteigen.at but looks like only the shovel comments are there?