Shovels tested...Results predictable

[Chowda]

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.

[Jonathan S.]

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).

[BFD]

where is that nerds guy ?

[rabbit]

....
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

[Jonathan S.]

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.

[rabbit]

Here's the entire block of text:

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".

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?

/rabbit

[Jonathan S.]

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.

[rabbit]

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

[cmor]

"
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.

[Jonathan S.]

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?