Basejumper.com - archive

Found a thread on Blinc, but can't log in or re register:

Who is building the TOXIC PC's?
Who can give me more in formation on them?

Greeny

Martin Tilley @ AsylumBASE.

Ralph - Do yourself a favor...go get F111 PC's!!!
JJ

Abbie's got em in stock. Also a good explanation about their construction.

Splatula Rigging

Does anybody have a pic they can post of the attachment point of one of these?

I can see why the single attachment point is an improvement, but how is cutting each section better?
Doesn't the integrity of having ONE circular piece of ZP leave less chance for error/ inconsistency?

What does "greater degree of manufacture" and "tighter tolerances" translate to, If I'm looking at a $175 Toxic PC and a "regular" PC, that were built by the same person at the same facility? Just wondering as I am going to build a couple of ZP vented PC's for myself someday soon here.

**edited for clarity**

I have a few for you to check out...

just this weekend I was switching between my toxic 42 and a regular av 42 after having used the toxic for awhile. Noticed a difference of time from pitch to inflation, the toxic seemed quite a bit faster.
The indivual pieces create a more true round inflated pc with less distortion of the edges. I definately reccomend them.

Just my random opinion:
I've had mine from when they first came out (I honestly can't remember exactly when that was) and whenever I hear someone even mention the Toxic my first thoughts are "I *love* mine!" When I first packed it, I was a little worried that with ZP at the apex it would slip, but the feel of it at pitch time is amazing. I've done some silly, unscientific, inflation tests with it and my old one of the same size from BounceProof (mainly throwing them off of things with some weight) and the Toxic inflates noticeably quicker (I did not take any actual measurements). This thing has a nice solid snatch force that you can feel when "airing it out" before packing it.

Basically, I'm in love.
</opinion>

Anybody got a pic they can post...? Or feel like taking a pic (that shows the amazing differences) and posting it?

I gotta see what is so great about these things.

I don't have a camera with me, so no pic for now. It is very noticeable to me when using the Toxic. On 1-2 sec handheld and stowed delays with a 42, I can definitely tell the difference from time of pitch to time of linestretch. The effect seems greater when going stowed on short delays.

I'll try and get some action shots of it later today.

The micro-second longer it takes for a F111 PC to inflate is actually benefical to the jumper - because the PC will fully inflate overdead and it offers longer groundrush!!! Quicker inflation is actually counter productive for the jumper - i.e. it begins pulling the canopy at an unfavorable angle. And yes, using differnt halves or quarters of material for a PC (regardless of texture - ZP, F11, Balloon ZP, denim, silk, etc) will impose varying degrees of integrity and consistency and thus contribute to varying degrees of outcomes unfavorable to the user - i.e. oscillation! Although Marty makes some beautiful and elaborate BASE equipment...$175 for a PC is crazy! Unless you're jeb corliss...paying that kind of dough will take away from your precious travel funds. Is the PC encrusted with diamonds...?
JJ

I don't really buy that, expect maybe in extreme cross wind conditions, I don't really see quicker inflation of a pilot chute as ever being an issue. Seems like a good thing to me. Can you explain this better to me?

what he is saying is...

when you throw a PC out, it is to the right of your line of fall, (or left if your JT) and if it inflates to the right, it will take the canopy out and pull it to the side.
with a slightly-slower inflating F111 PC, the pc might be able to come directly into the fall line. making it a symmetrical extraction.

while i personly dont buy that F111 pcs take more than .000001 second to open compared to ZP, his point is sound.

I agree with JJ on about 99% of this.

The F-111 PC will move to bridle stretch (to the side), then come back to center, and then inflate in the ideal position, centered over the jumpers back.

The ZP PC will tend to inflate when it hits bridle stretch, off to one side, which tends to increase the rate of oscillation during deployment, which is one factor that reduces heading performance.

To dramatically oversimplify: F-111 PC's tend to give better opening heading than ZP. (please remember that's a real oversimplification of a much longer and more complex process)


One thing that can bring ZP up to the standard of F-111 in this regard (point of initial inflation relative to jumper/pack tray) is the direction of the jumpers pitch. If you are pitching directly upward (as popularized by DW and RS for ultra low freefalls) at exit, your ZP PC will inflate in the same position as an F-111 PC (directly over your back). The F-111 is still better "vented" (since it's essentially equally vented across it's entire surface) than the ZP, and can dampen further oscillations better, but that's not terribly important because, assuming good (symmetric) attachment, further oscillation is unlikely (and of small magnitude if it does occur).

So, for very low freefalls, with a directly upward pitch, I'd still want to go with ZP over F-111. I mostly say this because I know what kind of things the original poster is into.

You might want to search through this forum for the thread titled Pie Slice Pilot Chutes.

In summary, cutting each slice individually allows the block/bias to be rotated, resulting in a PC that essentially has no overall bias (hence is significantly less prone to deformation than a standard "one circle" cut PC).

For the record... I don't really notice a difference in inflation between a typical Asylum PC and a Toxic.

Hey now, he's not the only lefty!

And on the other topic here...does anyone possibly have video of an oscillating PC where the canopy does not have an off heading?

 This is a response to the few posts that claimed to see a noticeable difference in deployment time with their 42 after a few second delay... I repectfully say, bullshit. The design of the Toxic and it's pie slices is supposed to reduce oscillation due to lack of deformation in the bias of the zp fabric or so I learned from Marty. I just cannot imagine that one zp pilot chute would be even fractionally faster in lifting a canopy off my back than any other zp pilot chute, given that they are both the same size and age. If the super clean design of the Toxic actually did speed up the process, it would be by such a micro fraction of a second, that I know a human in freefall would never be able to really feel the difference. I'm sure you can be so happy with your new Gucci pilot chute that you may swear it's way faster, and if it makes you feel better about your purchase, hey, who am I to bring you back to reality? Now what happens with that pack job, i.e. oscillation, is an entirely different subject. I know Marty makes some fine products, and I don't doubt that the Toxic may be the next chapter in zp pilot chutes and addressing oscillation.
$175.00? I could buy two F-111's and a twelve pack.
The only way I would ever pay that kind of money for a pilot chute is where it would really count and all that engineering would be put to the test, terminal jumps. I'll wait and see, the Toxic will have to be damn special to replace my F-111's.

Agreed. I jump both Toxic and non-Toxic pilotchutes and haven't noticed a difference in the twenty jumps I've done with them each. Maybe that's not enough jumps, but I'd be very surprised if there was a noticeable difference. At best the rate at which hesitations occur drops, but significant hesitations are quite rare to begin with (for most jumpers anyway).

A warm and fuzzy feeling is great, but I don't think my next PCs will be Toxic. I'm the last person to cut budget on life-saving equipment, but a Toxic is a lot of money.

I wonder if Marty will make F111 Toxics (without the vents, but with the pie-slices).

so what your saying is I can pull lower with the toxic and get even more ground rush right? Have you jumped both pc's on back to back jumps?

I've acutally moved on from BASE...but I did a lot of research in collaboration with BR (namely Annie) on the PC matter...so I can't say I've done back to back research using Toxic and non-toxic PCs. We did however toy with the idea of a wider circular vent -vent being less than 1 inch in width but about 8 inches round - but decided the benefit would not be worth the work - i.e. nobody would buy a $200 dollar pc. BUT, we came back to another idea - went retro - F111! I like to say...think of it as the most advanced PC available today - it has millions of perfectly spaced micro-scopic vents, greatly reducing the forces that cause oscillation! I would just like to add that F111 PCs are most effective on sub-term slider up jumps...

Pie slices on any PC is NOT a good idea altho it looks cewl!

And finally, yes...you can pull lower using a ZP PC>>>but only a fraction of a second - which may seem like a loooong time when you are quickly meeting the ground! Ground rush rules!!!
Be safe, be smart - jump F111!!!
JJ

I have. I've also watched and shot video of them on back to back to back to back jumps (on the same load, and on successive loads). If I ever get to the end of my list of things to do, I'll try to put some of that video on line. My current impression is that the Toxics are (a) noticeably better built, (b) more durable, (c) have about the same oscillation damping/oscillation rate as other vented ZP pilot chutes, (d) on jumps with little or no oscillation perform the snatch/extraction functions virtually identically to other PC's.

I do not think that any PC (ZP, F-111, Vented, Toxic, whatever) that I've ever seen can actually create a faster deployment than any other. I'm not saying that it's not possible--I just haven't seen it yet.

I'm a bit at a loss to say how it might be possible (since virtually all PC's will vent the same amount of air--it's just a question of where they do the venting) for one PC to have noticeably more snatch and drag than any other unless one of the two was actually constructed so poorly that it didn't drag well at all (not the case with 95% of the BASE PC's I've seen, and 100% of the BASE PC's currently being sold new).

What leads you to this conclusion? Did you guys test this configuration and come up with problems, or just find them not any better than others?

For what it's worth, I've talked to several tandem manufacturers who recommend building drogues in pie slices for increased stability. Some of the other tricks they've come up with (side venting, increasing the size of the mesh relative to the topskin, etc) have yet to be tried in BASE.

Abbie told me yesterday that all he has in stock at the moment are Asylum A/V 42" and 46" PC's, no Toxics or regular (non-vented) PC's.

It's called staging the pilot chute to place it directly above you after the pitch. It depends on how you pack your pilot chute independent of material. This has been the most critical factor for me in getting on heading openings.

DW has popularized the pitch up method head high method for super low jumps but it was known experimentally by many jumpers before him.

If there is less chance of an oscillation though through a new technology, I would take it regardless of cost. Many a jumper in the past wished they had spent a little extra money on better gear while sitting in the hospital in traction.

Why?

It does what's advertised, evening the bias more so than any other PC on the market.

I'll agree that I don't find the benefit to outweigh the added cost, but that's just my opinion.

One thing that can bring ZP up to the standard of F-111 in this regard (point of initial inflation relative to jumper/pack tray) is the direction of the jumpers pitch. If you are pitching directly upward (as popularized by DW and RS for ultra low freefalls) at exit, your ZP PC will inflate in the same position as an F-111 PC (directly over your back). The F-111 is still better "vented" (since it's essentially equally vented across it's entire surface) than the ZP, and can dampen further oscillations better, but that's not terribly important because, assuming good (symmetric) attachment, further oscillation is unlikely (and of small magnitude if it does occur).

well...go study a few thousand jumps where, regardless of pitch direction, a ZP PC - vented or not - will just randomly oscillate! It's crazy...like they have a mind of their own! Any turbulent air that hits the "bottom skin" of ZP material will cause a reaction...and roughly 3 times out of 10 it's not benefical - especially when the canopy deploys the during the oscillation - this is why sub-term and an oscillating PC can be very "counter-intention" to the direction of the opening.

Tom, as for the pie slices on a PC, I'm referring to using different material (colors) on quarters of a PC. The different quarters have differnt block and bias integrity as you say above. This difference in the quarters or "pie slice" (if this is what you mean) will cause varying levels of reaction to turbulence when it hits the "botton skin" of a PC - causing oscillation... In my experience anyway...

Good luck folks and be careful!
JJ

f111, it is better

all this fractionally faster stuff is just silly. base rigs open fast as hell. totally fast and predictable; no need to speed them up.

F111 is best. i am right. everyone else is wrong; zp is for 46 inch and 48 inch PCs used on hand held sub 230ft FF without skis:

Uncle potato head.

Can you give us an idea what fraction of those jumps involved an upward pitch direction? In other words, how many of those were low go and throw stuff (i'm guessing some of them were from BR's little wall?) and how many were longer delays from Malaysian events and such?

People....listen to Uncle Potato Head...

JJ

Agreed, my PCs have 3, or 4 slices in them.

why on earth would it be bad to have slices in the PC?
you -DO- look at you pc to check for anything wrong with it before stuffing it into the BOC right? ('anything wrong' would include AN ENTIRE GORRAM STITCH COMING APART ON A BOUBLE STICHED SEEM)

marty has once again built me the best rig ever (that make 3 now by him) my pc has the attacment point your speaking of i'll post a pic it is great....

PIC?

That'd be super!

It's the loop style attachment mentioned in the "First BASE Rig" article linked at the top of this page.

I'm at a complete loss why PCs with the traditional attachment point still exist. For ten bucks extra the loop style attachment is a no-brainer.

I suspect it's because a majority of BASE jumpers applies little critical thought to their purchase, placing all business transactions in the "it's from a reputable manufacturer, so it must be good, right?" category.

Is there any non-economical reason why an expert jumper may prefer the traditional attachment point?

For many years, the loop style was not available from any major manufacturer. They had made the decision that the ease of manufacturing the non-loop style was greater by enough to justify making all their stock PC's in that style only.

Around '99 or 2000, Colin at Paratech started making BASE PC's with the loop attachment and marketing them. That's around the time that the idea started re-circulating through the BASE world.

I think the non-loop style has held on just because people are used to it, because many of today's opinion leaders in BASE "grew up" jumping with PC's that had that style of attachment.

Here ya go. He'll put it on any PC. I didn't get a toxic, going all F111 and just replacing more often.

Someone brought up the question of making a toxic F111. My question is, if the interchanged pie slices are to keep a "rounder" shape (alternating block and bias), isn't that the same function of 6 reinforcing tapes? Is there REALLY that much of a difference?

cya

BASE is a poor choice when "growing up with it" is a person's only rationale.

I see why, but do not understand why. Alas...

Not necesarily. Reliability demonstrated through years of use is a valid reason for continuing to use something. It has the benefits of real-world proof. Newer technologies only have the benefits of reasoning, logic, and testing. None of those is actually as strong as real-world proof.

no, there isnt. if there is a measurable difference, i quit BASE.

the PCs i made have 'slices' for reasons other than keeping the inflation stretch thing spherical, but i did do symmetrical ZP 'grain' pannels none the less.

Nice! I got a good laugh outta that! I don't *think* there would be any difference, but one life lesson I've learned long ago was theory and practice are 2 different things...

Your question is assuming a purpose. Maybe the purpose is different?

For example, with pie slices, it's possible to shape the PC into a different shape than the flat round that a single cut of ZP forms, by simply altering the shape of the triangle you make for each pie slice.


Rotating the block/bias allows you to keep the minimum stretch. This applies across the segments (where there are no tapes on either design) I'd say that there is definitely a measurable difference, in terms of stretch, if you are measuring on a table, with an actual ruler. Whether that makes any difference in real world use is another question entirely.

Which I think is the purpose of this thread. Does anyone have any hard evidence on either side, for or against, this issue? Something other then "price" or "it feels faster". Video? Video with timeing? Using the same variables (ie, TF, back to back, same type of packjob, same delay, etc) Anything?

I'd love to see it. Maybe it does make a difference. Or, maybe it just looks cooler

Honestly, I've got a ton of video of various PC's, including Toxics, being used in FJC's here, with the same delays and conditions on back to back jumps of the same load.

I don't, however, currently have that video on-line, nor do I have the time to digitize it all and put it up on-line right now.

My feeling, from watching those deployments (and the video) is that there is no noticeable difference in actual use. But that's just my feeling--I haven't had the time to do an actual frame by frame comparison and analysis. If anyone wants to come copy all my FJC tapes and hunt through them to do that analysis, they're welcome to do so.

There is actually more to the toxic than the block/bias construction. The vents are placed differently, changed based upon where the high pressure areas exist in a centerline PC. The vent placement is different on 42/46's as opposed to 38/36/32's as well.

Seriously Ralph, just email Marty...

Oh, and for people who like pretty colors on their gear, you can have a Toxic made with all sorts of "Look At Me" shades...or maybe a rainbow for those folks...

and f111 is easier to sew.

Ok, well good to know the data is there. If no one gets to it by june, I'll nab it from you Tom. Seeing how the PC is *the* most important part of deployment, if no one wants to do the research I'll step up.

Till then, have fun and don't die

I thought that went without saying (or at least had already been said earlier in this thread). The construction methods are noticeably different in the Toxic PC's (and, in my opinion, better), and there are several other differences, as well.

Non-centered vents are also available on standard (non-pie slice) pilot chutes from Morpheus, although as far as I know they are the only manufacturer aside from Asylum (on the Toxic) doing the non-centered vents.

i bet its been posted, but can someone post a pic of one of these magic pcs?

You mean this?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/...mping/content.8.html

Hey, that's my PC. It's Tom Manship's old Dagger 313, too.

thank you!


how about something more along the lines of vent placement. any pics like that?

If you look closely, you can see some white between the inner color and outer color on the same "slice". That's the vent

Hey, that's my Toxic's twin PC!

Awesome photo...very nice!

Are we reading the same thread? I only pointed it out because it had not been previously mentioned.

The truth is that I didn't review the whole thread before posting that. I know we've talked about that stuff before somewhere, but since I have to read every damn thing posted on this board, it sometimes blurs together.

The truth is that I didn't review the whole thread before posting that. I know we've talked about that stuff before somewhere, but since I have to read every damn thing posted on this board, it sometimes blurs together.
Come on TOM!! Get it together. You're a man of truth! BASE jumpers across the globe hinge on your every word! Just f$#cking with you...

BR (Anne and I) considered a similar design - putting the vents on the crown of a PC - but thought it would cost way too much to manufacture - nobody would want to spend that kind of money on a PC (I guess we were wrong!)...and didn't really see a benefit to match the cost. Besides, IT COULD NEVER MATCH THE SUPERIORITY OF F111!!! Think of F111 as putting millions of tiny little vents spread evenly - the utimate material to dampen the forces that cause oscillation. How else do I say it?

Although I guess it doesn't look as cool as the Toxic...and that's what BASE is to a large part of the community - looking cool! But, being dead or injured doesn't look or feel very good now does it? But, the resulting scars could attract chicks...so what do I know?
JJ

So, it has been a while since this thread started...i picked it up again since i have ordered a 48" Toxic
Im on a low-object mood right now hehe...so i would like to hear from you guys if this pilot still are worth the 175$$ it cost? how-low have you freefalled with this bad-ass toxic?

good day

Never jumped one myself, but I know a few guys who swear they are the best thing out there, so i guess that would make it worth the cost. The real person to ask would be a crazy japanese guy who used to jump around norcal who ordered a 50" toxic!

225' 1sec (exact) delay handheld with 42 toxic

not recommended if you're fat or too scared to take any delay.

why do you need a vented 48 pc or ever 46 vpc,
42 vpc definitely make a difference

what do you mean? i need a bigger pc than a 42" for the object i planing to jump...