Petzl Headtorches

Peter Clinch

Rob G wrote:

> Peter Clinch correctly justifies the higher prices on R & D and better
> capability, particularly where these torches are concerned on
> waterproofness. Though having said that, the old bulb type Petzl I
> had was anything but waterproof.

You pays your money and you takes your choice: Pretzl will sell you a
waterproof one like the Duo if you're willing to pay extra cash. Beyond
that, an old style Gloom is simple electrics, where AIUI a LED torch
needs a small electronic circuit board. ICBW but my guess is that could
be rather more sensitive to water contamination.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard Phillips

Richard Phillips wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I bought a Myolite 3 last weekend, salesman convinced me it was a
> good one. Normally I do lots of research before buying stuff, this
> was a bit more "heat of the moment" purchasing though. Having read a
> little more about it, it seems the Myolite 3 is aimed at night
> running, hence it has a long distance beam and is rather heavy and
> bulky! Plus, the batteries won't last long at all with the main
> zenon beam...
> So, I'm thinking on changing to a Tikka. Anyone use them? Opinions?
>
> Regards,
> R.

I phoned the shop and they are quite happy to replace the Myolite 3.
Probably going to go for one of the Tikkas, not 100% sure which yet though.

Cheers,
R.

Mike Clark

In message <00543611-7bfc-4d95-a92e-a535360283ff@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Rob G <robkgraham@btinternet.com> wrote:

[snip]
> > Well you're only alive once and you can't take your money with you when
> > you die.
> >
> > :-)
> >
[snip]
>
> Which sounds like an awfully good plug for buying something by price
> and not by value.
>
> One of the mistakes that most people make is that they relate
> 'quality' to price, whereas 'quality' is actually meeting what the
> customer wants, and in most sensible cases, the the price does need to
> be taken into account. Regretably sports gear and its buyers are
> seriously, in current times, subject to fashion and there are items
> that are blatantly overpriced.
>
> Rob

Yes well it is an area of discussion I'm particularly sensitive to since
I'm an inventor of several recombinant antibody therapeutics. We
frequently get discussions in the media about "post code lotteries in
the NHS" and NICE pronouncing that "product X is not considered good VFM
for the Health Services for disease Y".

However the counter side to that is that if you are one of the patients
who is likely to have your life expectancy improved by the product you
might be prepared to pay a premium price.

When purchasing outdoor gear I tend to operate on what extra benefits I
can get for the amount of money that I'm prepared to part with. I use my
equipment in circumstances where it might be more than just inconvenient
if it failed or didn't work as expected, it might increase the risks of
an accident, injury or even death. If I'm mountaineering or
ski-mountaineering in winter, or down a serious cave, the equipment
might need to be used in the cold, exposed to damp conditions, and
subject to a range of knocks. Having gear that has been specifically
designed by, and for people who have experience of such conditions
generally is a good recommendation of utility. Petzl not only spend a
lot of money on R&D but they also subject their equipment for
appropriate safety testing and registration. Petzl gear is often
certified for use in safety critical work and rescue situations whereas
I doubt the same is true of most of the cheaper imitations.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | reader in immunology, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Dominic Sexton

In article <fj67b3$7l6$1@aioe.org>, Richard Phillips
<raphillips@ntlworld.com> writes
>I phoned the shop and they are quite happy to replace the Myolite 3.
>Probably going to go for one of the Tikkas, not 100% sure which yet though.

Just be aware that it is only the XP model and its variants that have a
decent beam in the Tikka range. The others do little more than light
your immediate surroundings.

--

Dominic Sexton

Richard Phillips

Dominic Sexton wrote:
> In article <fj67b3$7l6$1@aioe.org>, Richard Phillips
> <raphillips@ntlworld.com> writes
>> I phoned the shop and they are quite happy to replace the Myolite 3.
>> Probably going to go for one of the Tikkas, not 100% sure which yet
>> though.
>
> Just be aware that it is only the XP model and its variants that have
> a decent beam in the Tikka range. The others do little more than light
> your immediate surroundings.

Ok, thanks for the advice. I think the XP is the frontrunner, followed by
the Tikka Plus. Unless I find something I really dislike about the XP when
I get my hands on it, it's probably going to be the one...

R.

Simon Challands

In message <8d31714c4f.mrc7offline@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>
Mike Clark <mrc7@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Petzl not only spend a
> lot of money on R&D but they also subject their equipment for
> appropriate safety testing and registration. Petzl gear is often
> certified for use in safety critical work and rescue situations whereas
> I doubt the same is true of most of the cheaper imitations.

Having said that, I'm a little sceptical of the Duo, which looks
rather flimsy to me. I know a few people who have used them
underground and are quite happy, but I'm wary (I've got one and
haven't yet tried it underground). If you want robustness I've an
Oldham miner's lamp, but it weighs a lot, and I still need to find
some means of replacing some acid I spilled out of it once, but that's
going rather off-topic.

--
Simon Challands

Peter Clinch

Simon Challands wrote:

> Having said that, I'm a little sceptical of the Duo, which looks
> rather flimsy to me. I know a few people who have used them
> underground and are quite happy, but I'm wary (I've got one and
> haven't yet tried it underground). If you want robustness I've an
> Oldham miner's lamp, but it weighs a lot, and I still need to find
> some means of replacing some acid I spilled out of it once, but that's
> going rather off-topic.

Robust compared to what? I wouldn't trust it against serious continued
banging and abrasion as much as the FX2 caving lamp I use underground,
but the main point for that is it's got a battery belt mount so can have
more ooomph and consequently lasts much longer on a full spot beam.
I've seen plenty of Duos go into caves and come out still working though.
A Duo /is/ waterproof, and is certainly more robust than the old Gloom,
and those are very well proven over decades of use.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mike Clark

In message <90049a4c4f.SimonC@helvellyn.plus.com>
Simon Challands <simon_usenet@helvellyn.plus.com> wrote:

> In message <8d31714c4f.mrc7offline@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>
> Mike Clark <mrc7@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Petzl not only spend a
> > lot of money on R&D but they also subject their equipment for
> > appropriate safety testing and registration. Petzl gear is often
> > certified for use in safety critical work and rescue situations whereas
> > I doubt the same is true of most of the cheaper imitations.
>
> Having said that, I'm a little sceptical of the Duo, which looks
> rather flimsy to me. I know a few people who have used them
> underground and are quite happy, but I'm wary (I've got one and
> haven't yet tried it underground).

Yes a few of my friends use Petzl Duo's but I use a Speleo Technics
Headlite with 7 LED array and Halogen with a NiMh pack.

> If you want robustness I've an Oldham miner's lamp, but it weighs a
> lot, and I still need to find some means of replacing some acid I
> spilled out of it once, but that's going rather off-topic.
>

However these again were built for purpose and fully certified (but
obviously they benefited from being sold in bulk and can be obtained
second hand). If you are going to sell your products into the workplace
environment then you need to take account that they may be subject to
H&S and other legislation. Getting the tests done and the certification
costs money and those R&D and certification costs need to be passed on
to the customer.

Most of the Petzl range carries CE marking, an IPV rating, and some of
them are certified for use in hazardous chemical or explosive
environments. On top of that Petzl offer a very good information service
through their website that details exactly how to use and not to use
their equipment, known failure mechanisms, and lists of available spare
parts and replacements. That kind of service costs a bit extra.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | reader in immunology, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Rob G

On 6 Dec, 12:08, Mike Clark <m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In message <90049a4c4f.Sim...@helvellyn.plus.com>
> Simon Challands <simon_use...@helvellyn.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > In message <8d31714c4f.mrc7offl...@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>
> > Mike Clark <m...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Petzl not only spend a
> > > lot of money on R&D but they also subject their equipment for
> > > appropriate safety testing and registration. Petzl gear is often
> > > certified for use in safety critical work and rescue situations whereas
> > > I doubt the same is true of most of the cheaper imitations.
>
> > Having said that, I'm a little sceptical of the Duo, which looks
> > rather flimsy to me. I know a few people who have used them
> > underground and are quite happy, but I'm wary (I've got one and
> > haven't yet tried it underground).
>
> Yes a few of my friends use Petzl Duo's but I use a Speleo Technics
> Headlite with 7 LED array and Halogen with a NiMh pack.
>
> > If you want robustness I've an Oldham miner's lamp, but it weighs a
> > lot, and I still need to find some means of replacing some acid I
> > spilled out of it once, but that's going rather off-topic.
>
> However these again were built for purpose and fully certified (but
> obviously they benefited from being sold in bulk and can be obtained
> second hand). If you are going to sell your products into the workplace
> environment then you need to take account that they may be subject to
> H&S and other legislation. Getting the tests done and the certification
> costs money and those R&D and certification costs need to be passed on
> to the customer.
>
> Most of the Petzl range carries CE marking, an IPV rating, and some of
> them are certified for use in hazardous chemical or explosive
> environments. On top of that Petzl offer a very good information service
> through their website that details exactly how to use and not to use
> their equipment, known failure mechanisms, and lists of available spare
> parts and replacements. That kind of service costs a bit extra.
>
> Mike
> --
> o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
> <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
> "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | reader in immunology, antibody engineer and
> ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Point taken, Mike - I was one of those querying the value of the
cheaper equivalents.

If you are going to stress any equipment to somewhere near its limits
then I agree that the cost of the item inevitably rises. My opinion
is that there are a significant proportion of purchasers who buy by
name, having the money to spend, and not by what is best value for how
the item is going to be used.

Rob

Peter Clinch

Rob G wrote:

> My opinion
> is that there are a significant proportion of purchasers who buy by
> name, having the money to spend, and not by what is best value for how
> the item is going to be used.

This is true, /but/ if you have the money, and considering the degree to
which time *is* money to some extent, it may just be easier to get
something you're sure will do the job rather than spend a long time
researching how much cheaper you can do it. The cheaper things are to
start with, the more this is true, so just because a £5 thing is five
times the price of a £1 thing, a fiver is the sort of sum that most of
us won't really miss in the grander scheme of things.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Simon Challands

In message <5rpr3rF15ad3fU1@mid.individual.net>
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> Simon Challands wrote:

>> Having said that, I'm a little sceptical of the Duo, which looks
>> rather flimsy to me. I know a few people who have used them
>> underground and are quite happy, but I'm wary (I've got one and
>> haven't yet tried it underground). If you want robustness I've an
>> Oldham miner's lamp, but it weighs a lot, and I still need to find
>> some means of replacing some acid I spilled out of it once, but that's
>> going rather off-topic.

> Robust compared to what? I wouldn't trust it against serious continued
> banging and abrasion as much as the FX2 caving lamp I use underground,
> but the main point for that is it's got a battery belt mount so can have
> more ooomph and consequently lasts much longer on a full spot beam.
> I've seen plenty of Duos go into caves and come out still working though.
> A Duo /is/ waterproof, and is certainly more robust than the old Gloom,
> and those are very well proven over decades of use.

Hmm, is the FX2 the one with the rather vulnerable-looking wingnut on
top of the battery? I can find something to moan about with
everything! My concern is that the Duo doesn't look like it'll stand
up well to a few knocks, whereas the Oldham (being purpose-designed
for a tough environment) is as solid as anything. OTOH the Oldham
heavy and not particularly bright. I'll have to wait and see if I'm
happy with the life of the Duo, but at least it's easy enough to carry
spare batteries for it should it run out. I've come across a few moans
about the Duo's robustness, but come to think of it, I can't recall
any in reply to a specific incident. Mind you, I'm straying into
concerns that aren't particularly relevant to walking, other than
getting to the hole in the ground! (mines more than caves for me).

--
Simon Challands