In German only :

http://www.kassensturz.sf.tv/Nachrichten/Archiv/2012/01/25/Themen/Familie-und-Freizeit/So-funktioniert-das-Lawinenverschuettetensuchgeraet

Short cut to the results :

http://www.kassensturz.sf.tv/Tests/Lawinen-Verschuetteten-Suchgeraete-im-Test

or, in this test the Element came out ahead. I’d not over analyse that, they’re all good devices.

I think the link you meant to give for the full report was

http://www.kassensturz.sf.tv/Nachrichten/Archiv/2012/01/24/Test/Lawinensuchgeraete-Lebensretter-mit-Maengel

My German’s rather rusty, but it looks to me as though the article is written in journalese rather than more rigorous terms.

As you say, these are all pretty good devices, and to distinguish their merits would take careful and fully documented tests. Although it’s always interesting to see this sort of thing, it doesn’t look to me as though these tests would measure up to that sort of standard.

Thanks for the link and full link Richard. It says the tests were carried out with the aid of the SLF so hopefully they had some rigour. The Pieps problems with marking are interesting

The mark in the device is often lost after the first or second discovery. Thus, the device displayed in the search again and again been found buried - so much time was lost.

Michael Schober, CEO of beeps, argues that the coverage had not been sufficiently considered in the test. But it was exactly a strength of Pieps. Moreover, it would not happen often that the same three persons were buried in an avalanche.

Even with Arva Axis the testers had trouble with 2 and 3 victim searches.  Here were also repeatedly lost marks, which is reflected in the search times.

They say the Arva Axis has badly positioned buttons which lead to marking victims accidentally.

they failed to find victims with the Tracker but it was a strong performer looking for the first victim and was simple to use.

RichardH - 28 January 2012 06:27 PM

As you say, these are all pretty good devices, and to distinguish their merits would take careful and fully documented tests. Although it’s always interesting to see this sort of thing, it doesn’t look to me as though these tests would measure up to that sort of standard.

I don’t think they suggested in any way that this was that type of test. The explicit purpose of this test was to see how the devices performed in the hands of users with basic knowledge and that test was carried with some discipline. The start point was surely that all the devices met a high standard already, it was about usability for less experienced users.

You mention it’s always interesting to see this sort of thing, I’d have to say I never see this sort of the test. I see any number of tests carried out by experienced users and experts in the technology. I’d be interested to see a lot more of this sort of test.

I’m not massively surprised by the result. The aim was to identify the device that works best for the inexperienced user and the Element is really good here. It’s got a long range so the user quickly picks up the signal and has a simple interface and it doesn’t require to user to have additional training in techniques like expanding circles.

I’m sure your knowledge of both German and transceiver tests is better than mine, Ise.

As you think this test is rare, perhaps unique, it seems worth exposing the results to an English speaking audience, so I‘ve translated it. I’m not a professional linguist, and it’s over 30 years since I lived in Germany so the translation is probably a bit rough. There seems to be a space limitation on forum posts, so I can’t give the full translation here. 

Now that I’ve translated it, I stand by my earlier view that the article is written in terms (“journalese”?) from which it is not easy to extract general conclusions. I give below first a translation of the authors’ test protocol, then my view of the important conclusions from their results, then my comments on those conclusions.

How the tests were carried out (nearly verbatim translation of the authors’ test protocol)
Five of the best-selling avalanche transceivers were tested: Arva Axis, Mammut Element Barryvox, Ortovox 3+, Pieps DSP Tour and BCA Tracker 2. The list prices are all around 400 Swiss francs.
The test was in collaboration with WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research (SLF, i.e. Schnee und Lawine Forschung) and was planned and carried out in collaboration with an external expert.
In the tests 20 students (Schüler, which could also be translated as schoolchildren) searched for buried avalanche beacons. Students were chosen as test subjects because they were inexperienced with avalanche transceivers.
The tests took place in fields of size 40 x 40 meters.
The fields were 70 m apart, so that adjacent ones could not interfere.
In each field, 4 transmitters were buried 1 meter deep, which corresponds to the average burial depth in avalanches.
In each search, the students had to search for 3 of the 4 transmitters: one of the 4 was always switched off, so the students could never know which transmitters were activated.
Each search was stopped after 12 minutes, even if the student had not found all the transmitters.
The students searched for the transmitters using a probe. When they found the transmitter, this was registered automatically at the test centre.
The field supervisor confirmed the find. The student marked the find on his transceiver, and then continued to search for the next transmitter.
The students changed field after each search and went to search the next field.
In total, in the course of the day, 40 data sets per transceiver were accumulated, giving a total of 200 searches.
The results of each search contained the search time for the first, second and third transmitters.

My summary of the conclusions of the study
The average times for finding the first burial varied between 2.06 minutes (Barryvox) and 2.48 minutes (Arva). All the searches successfully found at least one burial within 12 minutes except two searches using the Tracker.

Search times for the second burial were a bit longer than for the first: between 2.11 (Barryvox) and 3.52 minutes (Pieps). The main reason for this is that the search times are longer for devices with marking difficulties.

The authors also conclude points about marking with specific transceivers:
The inconvenient location of the buttons on the Arva led the searchers to select a switch inadvertently with their gloves and so lost burials that had previously been marked.
The Pieps also lost burials that had been marked, leading to increased search times.
The best transceiver in the test is clearly the Barryvox. Only in one search did a student fail to find the third burial within 12 minutes with this transceiver. Also the search times are shorter than the other devices.

My comments on these results
The test protocol is quite challenging, particularly for inexperienced users. Even finding the first burial is potentially complicated by the presence of the other two transmitters.

I don’t believe that inexperienced users would have found a first burial in little more than two minutes using analogue transceivers: it would have taken a lot longer. Modern 3-antenna digital transceivers really are better.

Finding subsequent burials depends on the ability of the combination of the searcher and his transceiver to ignore the ones that have already been found and continue the search rapidly. Many of the conclusions of the study relate to the ability of an inexperienced searcher to mark targets in the transceiver as having been found, and keep them marked.

The Tracker 2 does not have a marking function. Nevertheless, in about ¾ of the searches with the Tracker, all 3 burials were found in under 12 minutes, a larger fraction than the Arva and the Pieps, and much the same as the Ortovox, all three of which do have marking functions. Only for the Barryvox does the marking function appear to have given a decisive advantage for these inexperienced users.

The relative importance of training for multiple burials is controversial (http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0831-multiple-burials-revisited/ http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0817-multiple-avalanche-burials-rarer-than-you-think/ http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/1028-problems-with-multivictim-searches/ ).

It can be argued that inexperienced users should not be confused by being taught to mark burials. The present tests would seem to support that view for the Arva, Pieps and Ortovox, but not for the Barryvox. It would be good to see further tests like the present one carried out, to see whether this result is reproduced.

RichardH - 14 February 2012 01:00 PM

I’m sure your knowledge of both German and transceiver tests is better than mine, Ise.

fairly sure at least one of those things isn’t likely to be true

RichardH - 14 February 2012 01:00 PM

I don’t believe that inexperienced users would have found a first burial in little more than two minutes using analogue transceivers: it would have taken a lot longer. Modern 3-antenna digital transceivers really are better.

yes, I reckon the first generation of digital devices, 2 or 3 antennas were a huge improvement but I remember trying to use an old Pieps for the first time years and years back and it was comic. I do a quick session with clients before we go out, the base level I want is that I stand a chance of being found for obvious reasons. These new simplified 3 antenna devices are really quite amazing.

By coincidence, I just sent someone our canned advice about transceivers if they bring their own. Basically, full batteries, 2 or 3 antennas. I can’t see anyone that’s genuinely a hotshot with an F1 really turning up for our trips so I interpret my duty of care to other clients that they meet that standard or use our gear.

RichardH - 14 February 2012 01:00 PM

It can be argued that inexperienced users should not be confused by being taught to mark burials. The present tests would seem to support that view for the Arva, Pieps and Ortovox, but not for the Barryvox. It would be good to see further tests like the present one carried out, to see whether this result is reproduced.

That could well be true. The problem is you ought to mention it to people, if you don’t there’s a chance a user will hit mark when searching and think the signal’s been lost totally.

Another reason (*) we went with Elements was range, my opinion is that the sooner an inexperienced user gets a signal and is moving on the arrow the better. I think this is far more significant for inexperienced users than for experts. Using the beaconreviews numbers :

element : 53m
3+ : 34m
tracker 2 : 38m
axis : 35m
DSP tour : 45m

Real world’s a bit less obviously but the ranking’s are about right. My Pulse in analogue mode gets results at 100m but I find it too weak for me to interpret, I can about use it at 60 or 70.

Personally, I’m not unhappy with my Tracker 1 and I still use it if we’re short.

I meant to add

(*) for the record, the other reasons were a) we had some Pulses already so it’s easier to teach b) I can bargain for upgrades and service better with more & c) our local partner rents them so we can get extra in if required. ..... quite like that green cover as well

A review from last autumn of various transceivers:

http://www.facewest.co.uk/Facewest-Transceiver-Review-2011.html

This pretty much confirms what has already been said with some interesting details.