Bug Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 I am looking at a Ortovox m-1. How does it differ from the M-2? Is it worth $150? Thanks for your info. Bug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 do you mean the f-1? M2, used, never buy a used avalanche transceiver. the operational transmitting range of transceivers is dependant on the integrity of crystals used to transmit beacon signal. A beacon's crystal tends to degrade over time after incurring various knocks around, a serious drop can halve the operating transmit range of a beacon. Take a five year old, any model, avy beacon that has seen normal field use. Compare it to a new beacon of the same model. Transmit range will be compromised 100% of the times in the older beacon. So, for a piece of safety equipment like this, i'd reccomend to buy new. That being said, new Ani/digi ortovox is a bit slower processing wise than some other ani/digis. but the ortovox is simpler. I still need to take some barryvoxs and x1s and BCA trackers and f1s out and compare max ranges and ease of signal pinpointing... since this is life and death stuff, spend a little extra and buy new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Beck said: do you mean the f-1? since this is life and death stuff, spend a little extra and buy new. NO! He means the freaking M-1. The M-1 is the predecessor to the X-1 - it was one of the first digi/analogue beacons. And's nice to use. As for buying a used beacon - if you know the person, or can test beforehand, or believe them to be trustworthy - go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 the f-1 is analogue, the m-1 still, analogue, with a funky lcd screen and two recievers, and the x-1 the first ana/digi from ortovox. the m1 was still a analogue receiver, with digital readout.. don't buy used avy beacons unless you can test it, ebay is a fools game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Beck said: do you mean the f-1? M2, used, never buy a used avalanche transceiver. the operational transmitting range of transceivers is dependant on the integrity of crystals used to transmit beacon signal. A beacon's crystal tends to degrade over time after incurring various knocks around, a serious drop can halve the operating transmit range of a beacon. Take a five year old, any model, avy beacon that has seen normal field use. Compare it to a new beacon of the same model. Transmit range will be compromised 100% of the times in the older beacon. So, for a piece of safety equipment like this, i'd reccomend to buy new. That being said, new Ani/digi ortovox is a bit slower processing wise than some other ani/digis. but the ortovox is simpler. I still need to take some barryvoxs and x1s and BCA trackers and f1s out and compare max ranges and ease of signal pinpointing... since this is life and death stuff, spend a little extra and buy new. I'm somewhat sceptical of this theory. How do beacons use 'crystals'? How does the range get affected? Could you post a link Beck? I'm curious about this phenomenon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Beck said: the f-1 is analogue, the m-1 still, analogue, with a funky lcd screen and two recievers, and the x-1 the first ana/digi from ortovox. the m1 was still a analogue receiver, with digital readout.. don't buy used avy beacons unless you can test it, ebay is a fools game! Others disagree: http://www.patrol.org/instructor/avalan/avtrans/6.html Crystals are an EE thing. I won't delve into because I wouldn't touch that stuff with a 10' pole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 and what do the pros disagree about? Is it the beacons, the fact that radio beacons like avy transceivers use crystals, or that used beacons degrade in their real world transmit range? couldn't really tell. Cracked, i don't know what you are talking about, ever. beacons use crystals as part of their telemetry equipment, like "quartz watches" (which also have crystals in them!) to ensure proper frequency... wow, talk about heavy science lessons. wow, quartz technology... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Gee, thanks for the link, Beck. As of now I see no reason to believe your claim that beacons degrade with use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Beck said: and what do the pros disagree about? That doesn't surprise me. The pros agree that the M-1 was Digi/Analogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Beck said:beacons use crystals as part of their telemetry equipment, like "quartz watches" (which also have crystals in them!) to ensure proper frequency... Actually some of the newer beacons are not reliant on crystals. They use digital synthesis to generate the frequencies, and are therefore more reliable. cj001f said:The M-1 is the predecessor to the F-1 - it was one of the first digi/analogue beacons. Wrong - the f1 precedes the m1 by many years, then came the m2 and then the x1 Beck said: the f-1 is analogue, the m-1 still, analogue, with a funky lcd screen and two recievers, and the x-1 the first ana/digi from ortovox. the m1 was still a analogue receiver, with digital readout.. First sensible thing you've said all day. The M1 and the m2 have no directional arrows, and only one antenna, therefore, not really digital beacons in the modern sense. Re crystals degrading: For the record I was an F1 user and upgraded last year (after Manuel Genswein shocked everyone at the Canadian Avalanche Ass. meeting in 2001 by putting 5 years on the lifetime of crystals). I bought the new SOS which uses a frequency synthesizer in place of a crystal. from here , bold mine. I think that Manuel might be regarded as an expert in this field. It's amazing how you clowns can argue about something when you have no idea what you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Snoboy, I love you! Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about and has sources to back it up! Beck, you still suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 thanks snoboy for putting a spin on things, but i think the M series had two directional receivering antennas,gave a digitally rendered directional as to where the dual receivers said a burial was.. and i din NOT know the new beacons got away from crystals, that is news to me... I guess this is technology... does the x1 still have crystals in the transmitter matrix? I hope so, the ortovox products always had extremely high sensitivity and range... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 the m1 and m2 were analogue avy beacons with digital screens. sorry to be posting intoxicahte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainierwon Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Beck said: sorry to be posting intoxicahte. Get help! PS- I have bought a used avi beacon, and one thing is to test 'em before writing the check. Will lurk on this very interesting dialog . -J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 snoboy said: For the record I was an F1 user and upgraded last year (after Manuel Genswein shocked everyone at the Canadian Avalanche Ass. meeting in 2001 by putting 5 years on the lifetime of crystals). I bought the new SOS which uses a frequency synthesizer in place of a crystal. from here , bold mine. I think that Manuel might be regarded as an expert in this field. Aside from an obscure ttips post do you have any other info regarding crystal degradation? Manuel's website lists no such info (at least in English) Crystal degradation is strongly a function of environment - i.e. temperature and humidity (they don't like greater than 45C, or humid environments- not a problem unless the case is comprimised) 5 years sounds like a "rule of thumb" - especially since the manufacturers warranty of Ortovox products is that long. But I'm sure you know it all snoboy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 It would make sense that the newer beacons wouldn't use crystals anymore. Why be reliant on crystals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 cj001f said: Aside from an obscure ttips post do you have any other info regarding crystal degradation? Manuel's website lists no such info (at least in English) I know I have read about it elsewhere... I am trying to find other references. I will post them when I do. cj001f said:But I'm sure you know it all snoboy. No, not yet, but I am open to learning it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I'm not going to do an internet search on a topic that I am aware is valid. my source on crystal degradation: Gary Brill, and personal field tests with new vs older beacons. I will check with Minot Maser in the next couple of days. He is a rep for BCA. I will also call Brill and maybe the folks at NWAC to check it out. Again, I don't need any convincing about avy beacons. They get compromised with age and hard knocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 The question is not "do beacons degrade" the question is "over what time frame do beacons degrade". I'm not debating that they degrade - the question is at what point in a beacons life should it no longer be used? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? I've not found an answer (but heard of Ortovox F2's still functioning well long past 5 years), and would be interested to hear an answer - without name-dropping, if you please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa_Eagle Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 it's not that they don't function, it's more that the range and sensitivity is compromised. A 10 year old beacon will probably work fine, but in a much smaller area. I too have heard the 5 year timeframe, but I don't remember where. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Ursa_Eagle said: it's not that they don't function, it's more that the range and sensitivity is compromised. A 10 year old beacon will probably work fine, but in a much smaller area. I too have heard the 5 year timeframe, but I don't remember where. Yes. I doubt they'll provide a performance degradation graph (if they even have one). The question is - at what age does an F1 have the range of a Tracker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 my five year old f-1 transmits at about 60% of original range and still receives at 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindude Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Beck said: my five year old f-1 transmits at about 60% of original range and still receives at 100% 60%, hmm. EXACTLY how did you determine this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 let's see... field test? comparing new to old? at Rainier on a avy seminar taught by one of the fellas at NWAC for park service folks? pretty much, seemed 60% ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindude Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Bug said: I am looking at a Ortovox m-1. How does it differ from the M-2? Is it worth $150? Thanks for your info. Bug OK, back to the original question. Bug, I don't think it was adequately answered in the digression of this thread. The person selling that M1 may not like my opinion, but personally, I would be paying $150 for it only if it was in like new/excellent condition. If it’s been used and in good to very good condition, I would want to pay around $100. I figure used goods are worth generally 30-70% of their original retail value, depending on condition. In the M1’s case, it had its problems and is now an obsolete unit, last manufactured no later than 1999. However, it is still a good, functional unit I would use myself or have a partner use in the BC, provided it was tested and practiced with. And this is outside any discussion of “crystals” and range. The Ortovox M1 was manufactured and originally introduced for the 1998-99 season, and was quickly made obsolete when the upgraded M2 version was made available the following year. I noticed a couple shops still selling the M1 at discounted prices even during winter 2000-01, likely as excess inventory. I’ve seen only a handful of the M1s used on the snow (not more than 8-10), and two of them had display problems such that they needed to be sent back to the factory for warranty repair. Bug, you probably already know this, but ask the seller why he's selling, and it's probably because he’s upgrading to a better unit himself. There may be other reasons as well. M2 differs from the M1 in re. to the following spec's (From here --note the display issues with the M1): - upgraded processor, which eliminated many of the M1 display problems, and operates at 90 vs. 50 cycles per minute - increased range, 80m vs. 40m Beck and others, word up. Both the M1 and M2 are single -antenna analog units, only their displays are digital thanks to their processors ( source ). In comparison: - Arva 9000 is like the M1 and M2 as a single-antenna analog unit with digital display - Ortovox F1 is a single-antenna analog-only unit (older technology) - Tracker DTS is a dual-antenna digital-only unit (newer technology than the Orotovox Ms and Arva 9000) - Barryvox and Orto X1 units are dual-antenna, dual digital-analog units (latest technology) The M1 and M2 are designed for you to search using the induction-line method, but if one has display problems (not caused by warranty issues), the searcher needs to first slow down and then also possibly use the tangent-line search method which I think is somewhat difficult with these units. With the M1/M2, I’ve noticed as the first-cited article mentions that the distance is often not accurate due to the orientation of the sending and receiving units, and the orientation can be such that it’s very difficult to follow the flux line. Ah, Beck. I don’t believe Snoboy is the spinner on this thread; rather, he has been keeping you in check. You’re not a tool for the transceiver industry, are you? I don’t believe transceivers degrade such that any used unit is not worth buying like you say. Transceivers are fairly bombproof, simple electronic units that do last years without significant degradation, and certainly any unit tested to be functional is worth it to be bought used. I've recently used 15-year-old Ramer units in practice. and even have practiced in the last couple years with the old Skadis dating back to at the least the 1970s. Honestly, I really don’t know anything about “crystals” (other than I built a crystal-diode radio when I was about 10, just like every other baby-boomer kid), so am interested to hear what you guys come up with, with solid facts and evidence. On a practical level, transceivers generally have 5-year warranties from their manufacturers, and they of course last much longer than that. My F1 is still going strong 8 years from the time I bought it, without what I noticed before, in all my practicing and checks, to be a significant decrease in range or performance (but I’ll check now!). I can say the same for virtually all the other F1s most of my buddies have, many of which are about as old. Perhaps there are 1-2 F1 units I’ve seen with noticeably decreased range, so I will be keying on this through the winter. I would expect transceivers to degrade over time. I think the questions are how much degradation over what period of time, for each particular type of unit. At any rate, I’ll be checking my older F1’s range vs. the newer ones as soon as I get my hands on one, which will be soon. OK, enough. Good luck bartering Bug, and cheers, everybody! --Steve Reynolds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.