PaddleWise by thread

From: Patrick Maun <patrick.maun_at_duffy.com>
subject: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: 13 Aug 98 10:58:52 +0000
Hello All!

A few weeks back, my Icom IC-M1 VHF died. I was out rolling and the LCD screen filled with water. Pretty sad, but at least it didn't happen out in the field, just during a practice session. So, I sent it into Icom who repaired it and sent it back. This is where it gets interesting. Along with the radio was a little sales flyer with the headline "Water-resistant protection you can count on!." The following paragraph reads:

Water-resistant construction
Effective water-resistance provides reliable operation
under severe marine conditions. Torrential downpours,
heavy seas -- no problem for this transceiver. 
Interesting. Someone had actually circled this paragraph with a red pen. My LCD screen distinctly says "Waterproof". The website at Icom rates the radio as:

• Submersible JIS-7 rating (withstands submersion for 30 minutes at depth of 1 meter)

So, what's the deal? I know alot of people who paddle with Icom *because* it is supposedly the most waterproof of the handhelds. Maybe we should put together a petition for them to get their sh*t in gear and make the radio waterproof. I think that the paddling community must make up a fairly sizable portion of their IC-M1 sales. 
Ideas?

-Patrick





***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Dan Hagen <dan_at_hagen.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:59:48 -0700
Patrick Maun wrote:
> 
> ...SNIP...
>
> So, what's the deal? I know alot of people who paddle with Icom > *because* it is supposedly the most waterproof of the handhelds. 

Actually, according to someone with whom I spoke at Icom, the model that
failed you (the IC-M1) is *not* the most waterproof of the handhelds, in
fact it is not even the most waterproof of the Icom handhelds, in spite
of the rating.  The M1 may be the most waterproof of the el-cheapo
handhelds, but the M15 and the Navico Axis both have a better reputation
for waterproofness.  (I bought an M15 after talking to Icom, and after
reading a report of one that withstood one day submerged at 10 feet
without leaking.)  The most important thing to remember, however, is
that *any* piece of waterproof equipment can fail.  That is why I like
to carry back-ups.  (I carry a back-up radio and a back-up GPS.)   

Remember Murphy's Law!

Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: MAX <MAX_at_solomax.com>
subject: [Paddlewise] The M15 rocks!
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:46:32 -0300
At 03:59 PM 13/08/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Patrick Maun wrote:
>> 
>> ...SNIP...
>>
>> So, what's the deal? I know alot of people who paddle with Icom >
*because* it is supposedly the most waterproof of the handhelds. 
>
>Actually, according to someone with whom I spoke at Icom, the model that
>failed you (the IC-M1) is *not* the most waterproof of the handhelds, in
>fact it is not even the most waterproof of the Icom handhelds, in spite
>of the rating.  The M1 may be the most waterproof of the el-cheapo
>handhelds, but the M15 and the Navico Axis both have a better reputation
>for waterproofness. 

I'll vouch for the M15. I always have it attached to the outside of my life
jacket, and have had it submerged underwater many times while rolling. It
has been through *a lot*. No problems yet! 

I have a photo of my PFD, and all the other safty equiptment(including the
M15) which I carry while paddling... at this location: 

http://www.solomax.com/formyprotection.html

Have fun... ALWAYS!

MAX

http://www.solomax.com ~ A four year solo kayak journey ~

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Patrick Maun <patrick.maun_at_duffy.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: 14 Aug 98 11:09:57 +0000
Dan Hagen wrote:
>Actually, according to someone with whom I spoke at Icom, the model that
>failed you (the IC-M1) is *not* the most waterproof of the handhelds, in
>fact it is not even the most waterproof of the Icom handhelds, in spite
>of the rating. [SNIP]

But, according to Icoms website and other information the M1 and M15 have the same rating.This is really annoying because how else am I supposed to find this information out. To me,something is either waterproof or it isn't. Icom can't go on calling the M1 waterproof if the thing is going to fail with a minor dunking. That is water-resistant, not waterproof. The reason I got a waterproof handheld was so that I wouldn't have to keep it in a dry bag. 
-Patrick

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Dan Hagen <dan_at_hagen.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:12:45 -0700
Patrick Maun wrote:
> 
> But, according to Icoms website and other information the M1 and M15
> have the same rating. This is really annoying because how else am I 
> supposed to find this information out. To me,something is either
> waterproof or it isn't. 

It isn't quite this simple.  The fact that two designs meet the same
minimum standard does not imply that they are equally well built. All
designs have some probability of failure. One would certainly expect
that the probability of failure differs across designs (even among those
designs that meet the same minimum standard).

> Icom can't go on calling the M1 waterproof if
> the thing is going to fail with a minor dunking. 

Sure they can--particularly if they are willing to provide a warranty
against failure due to water penetration.  I'm sure that Icom will
repair or replace your unit under warranty.  Of course a warranty
doesn't do you much good if you need it in an emergency and the thing
doesn't work.  This is why it is important to do a bit of research into
the experiences of others regarding reliability.  Max's experiences are
a good example of the sort of thing to which I am referring.  Of course
it would be nice to find some hard data, but even anecdotes can be of
some use.  As a colleague of mine likes to point out, the plural of
"anecdote" is "data". :-)  

> The reason I got a waterproof handheld was so that I wouldn't have
> to keep it in a dry bag.

If you want to avoid the use of a baggie, I recommend that you consider
an M15 or a Navico Axis.  FWIW, my personal opinion is that an M15, a
couple of batteries (say, a 900mAh and a 1200mAh), and a rapid charger
make a combination that is hard to beat.  I would also add a telescoping
antenna, as a longer antenna will dramatically increase your range of
transmission. (Adapters are available to attach a TNC or BNC antenna to
an SMA mount.)   

Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Patrick Maun <patrick.maun_at_duffy.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: 14 Aug 98 14:51:12 +0000
Dan Hagen wrote:
>Sure they can--particularly if they are willing to provide a warranty
>against failure due to water penetration.  I'm sure that Icom will
>repair or replace your unit under warranty.  
They did repair it under warranty. It's not the warranty that I'm complaining about, it's the fact that they present the M1 and M15 as having the same level of waterproofing. I did my research in the way that most of us do: I asked fellow paddlers, posted to the list, looked at various Internet specs and brochures, and finally, talked with the guys at US Marine. It just ticks me off that Icom is now claiming that the radio is "resistant" (the flyer is actually dated 1995) and not waterproof.  I still know several people who have their M1's strapped to their PFD's and are rolling happily away with them. How long until these fail in the field, especially now that we (in the Midwest) are getting closer to the more dangerous fall season on Lake Superior. 

>If you want to avoid the use of a baggie, I recommend that you consider
>an M15 or a Navico Axis. 
After I spent $250 getting the M1 just a few months ago? Anyone have an idea of how long after purchase US Marine will exchange a radio? And what
is the price of the M15? And is the M15 *really* more waterproof than the M1? Too many questions, why can't the damn thing just work like it's
supposed to. Hrumpf.

-Patrick

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Dan Hagen <dan_at_hagen.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:53:27 -0700
Patrick Maun wrote:
> 
> ...why can't the damn thing just work like it's supposed to. Hrumpf.

I feel your pain.  But as I'm sure you know, it's wise to avoid placing
too much faith in the reliability of gadgets.  Sooner or later they will
let you down, no matter how well built they are.  I'm sure that the
booster rocket that exploded recently (along with its billion-dollar
satellite) was very carefully designed and well built. But it simply
isn't possible to eliminate all risk of failure-- *particularly* when we
are talking about a $200 mass-produced radio that is to be used (and
abused) in a marine environment.  If you think about it, it is amazing
that some of these gadgets work as well and as long as they do...   

Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Robert C. Cline <rcline_at_onramp.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom M3A vs. Apelco 520
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 17:28:52 -0500 (CDT)
The 520 is visibly better built for water tightness than is the M3A (JS-4
rating).  Of worthy mention  however is, I would monitor the Wx from the
M3A in the car.  I can't do that with the Apelco 520.

I conclude that the Icom had a more sensitive receiver, although I don't
know what the specs say.

Robert


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: A Burton <aburton1_at_maine.rr.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom M3A vs. Apelco 520
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:52:09 +0000
All this talk about radios has got me thinking it might 
be a good safety idea to get one, as I paddle alone a lot.   I 
looked at a Raytheon today.  Has anyone seen / heard of / used 
Raytheon's "Ray106" ?  Opinions?  The specifications seem 
similar to the ICOM M15.  (I know nothing about radios.)

Anne Burton


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Dan Hagen <dan_at_hagen.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:38:31 -0700
JCMARTIN43_at_aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 98-08-14 14:48:50 EDT, you write:
> 
> << I would also add a telescoping
>  antenna, as a longer antenna will dramatically increase your range of
>  transmission. (Adapters are available to attach a TNC or BNC antenna to
>  an SMA mount.)    >>
> 
> Any possibility you could translate that last bit into pilot-speak?  The
> alphabet part about adaptors?  Either for me or for the list?  Would be really
> helpful to know if I can do this to my Apelco 510.

These simply refer to different antenna mounts.  The TNC and BNC are
larger mounts (the TNC being a bit more common on modern radios), while
the SMA is a much smaller mount, and is used on some Icom models (such
as the M1 and the M15) and on some Standard models (such as the
HX-250/255).  All of the telescoping antennas that I have seen have a
TNC or BNC fitting--thus the need for an adapter if you have a radio
with an SMA mount.  (BTW, depending on the nature of the adapter,
waterproofing the connection is fairly simple.  However, I suspect that
for most handheld waterproof radios the waterproofing of the antenna
adapter is primarily a *corrosion* issue, not a water penetration issue,
but don't hold me to that...you should look into this for your specific
radio.) 

Your Apelco 510 has a TNC mount, which means that all you need to do is
to buy an antenna with a TNC mount--there is no need for an adapter.
These are readily available from marine electronics stores.  Those who
own an Icom need to exercise care in selecting an antenna and/or
adapter, as Icom has produced models with all three types of antenna
mounts.

Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Dan Hagen <dan_at_hagen.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:44:18 -0700
Robert C. Cline wrote:

> The problem with the M15 is, it only uses the rechargable batteries... not
> the Alkaline that are off the shelf.  On extended overnights, or days of
> heavy usage, this presents a problem.

Huh? Unless you know something that I don't, this statement is simply
untrue. First, I think what you mean is that Icom does not make a AA
battery pack for the M15.  This does not imply that you cannot use AA
alkaline batteries, it simply implies that you need to use a wee bit of
resourcefulness to use them.  As was pointed out in an article in Sea
Kayaker magazine a few years back, it is a simple matter for any
competent electronics technician to rig up a AA battery pack for most
handheld radios.  In the case of the M15 this is particularly easy,
because of the large size of the high-capacity battery case and because
of the nature of the watertight gasket. (HINT: Have the technician
remove the NiCad cells and insert fittings for AAs.)

Having said this, and having used both AA alkalines and NiCads in
handheld VHF radios, I have difficulty imagining why anyone would prefer
to use AA alkalines. There are significant advantages to NiCads:  

(1) Good NiCads can be cycled approximately 1,500 times.  The equivalent
number of disposable alkalines is quite large (and very costly).  This
loses relevance only if you use your radio very infrequently.

(2) NiCads have a very flat voltage curve as they are discharged.  This
contrasts with alkalines, whose voltage drops significantly as they are
used.  For this reason, Icom was in the past quite hesitant to provide a
transmit power rating for their handhelds that use AA's.  (I used to
use, and still have, an Icom M7 with both a NiCad and a AA battery
pack.  The transmit power for the AA alkaline batteries, according to
Icom, was lower and more variable than for the NiCad.)

The disadvantages of NiCads:

(1) You need to "babysit" them.  They need to be exercised occasionally
(fully discharged and recharged), and they need to be monitored for
storage time, as they self-discharge in storage. (Approximately 20
percent in the first month, and 10 percent per month thereafter.)  The
hassle associated with both of these problems are mitigated through the
use of a rapid charger (hence my recommendation to include one in the
"optimal" package).

(2) They have a higher up-front cost.  If you are going on a long
expedition (say, more than one month) you might need to buy two or more
battery packs.  My recommendation of a 900mAh and a 1200mAh for the M15
will last a VERY long time, unless you are talkative to the point of
violating FCC regulations.  (While the upfront expense of two or more
battery packs is significant, if you use the radio frequently this is
still much cheaper than buying a mountain of alkalines.) 

While this is one of those issues where I do not expect to change
anyone's opinion, in my experience (having used both alkalines and
NiCads) there is no contest.  NiCads, on balance, are a clearly superior
choice for handheld VHF radios.  But if for some bizarre reason you
disagree :^) -- and want to use a reliable, truly waterproof, very
rugged handheld VHF -- then buy an Icom M15 and have a technician modify
a battery pack to use AA alkalines (yuck!).

Otherwise use a "baggie", and check it frequently for leaks.

As always, this is simply my humble opinion.

Dan Hagen
Mazama, Washington
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Robert C. Cline <rcline_at_onramp.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:04:17 -0500 (CDT)
Dan wrote:

>(2) They have a higher up-front cost.  If you are going on a long
>expedition (say, more than one month) you might need to buy two or more
>battery packs.  My recommendation of a 900mAh and a 1200mAh for the M15
>will last a VERY long time, unless you are talkative to the point of
>violating FCC regulations.  (While the upfront expense of two or more
>battery packs is significant, if you use the radio frequently this is
>still much cheaper than buying a mountain of alkalines.)
>
>While this is one of those issues where I do not expect to change
>anyone's opinion, in my experience (having used both alkalines and
>NiCads) there is no contest.  NiCads, on balance, are a clearly superior
>choice for handheld VHF radios.  But if for some bizarre reason you
>disagree :^) -- and want to use a reliable, truly waterproof, very
>rugged handheld VHF -- then buy an Icom M15 and have a technician modify
>a battery pack to use AA alkalines (yuck!).

DAn:  Thanks for these and the other very useful suggestions.  Yes, the
only reason I wanted a radio to be able to use the alkalines was to avoid
the necessity of recharging.  On trips of more than a couple of days, it
would be very prudent to have a radio that could use both.  I could not
imagine why ICOM (or any other manufucturer) would not design a handheld
that could use the alkalines as an option.

Perhaps it would be worth it to buy a couple of backup battery packs.  I
never thought to ask about price of the backups NiCads.  I was simply
thinking about the practical matter of having backup batteries availble.


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Christine Wein <Christine.Wein_at_sunny.health.state.mn.us>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Icom Revises Rating
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:39:05 -0500
Just an FYI:

I have had my ICOM M-1 with a NiCad battery out on a 7 day trip
and had no trouble with low battery syndrome. I drained it empty
before the trip and fully charged it. On the trip I did no
transmitting and only did twice daily weather checks. 

-chris
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:51 PDT