Basejumper.com - archive

I am looking to get into base jumping.....
I am 105lbs and 5'3''

What rig and canopy makers would you recommend buying from if your small, want your shit to open on heading and fast need it to be visually pleasing for video and stills.

I jump a 105 normally..

So im guessing that ill base jump like a 170???

I do plan on going to bridge day, but right now i'm just looking to purchase gear of my own, so that it will be ready by the time I plan on jumping.

More like a 205. A good rule of thumb for BASE is to take your body weight and add 100. Erring on the larger side can make your life more pleasant in the (inevitable) event of a landing in a bad area.



You're going to get a huge range of opinions on that, with basically everyone recommending whatever they happen to own. I'd recommend only paying attention to the folks who've owned gear from multiple manufacturers and can actually explain why they like one more than another. Honestly, though, you're going to be fine with gear from any major manufacturer (Apex, Asylum, Consolidated Rigging, Morpheus).

As far as "looks good" that's going to be up to you to decide. Anyone can make any colors you want, of course. But if you're going to pick a rig based on it looking good on video and stills, this is probably the wrong sport for you, anyway.

lol..... no i dont need to explain my motives, but yes it does need to look sexy and sleek...

Thanks for the advice!!! That makes sense about the landing in unplanned areas.

as we all know too well, things could often not go as planned...

I'm not familiar with base canopies, can you use skydiving canopies to base jump with?

Like CRW canopies or is base canopies more specific and separate,
for opening purposes?

yes, a Spectre 150 with Dacron lines should work great. Don`t worry about the speed...you always have some trees or rivers or cars you can land on if you can`t hit the original LZ

No....i'm being serious... like I said i know nothing about the sport personally... I was thinking like a 200 omni or something?!?!

if you are serious...why are you bringing skydiving equipment in here...you know better than that! everybody knows that, even my grandmother!

you can get base canopy down to 166 if you want...if you are serios about this...

so your saying nobody does it? or its not wise? Are any base canopies made of zp, sail or kite material? Or is it only F1-11? Hell honestly i dont know really...

Has there been drop test to see how sail or kite open? You think it would be a more rigid wing prone to less errors...or maybe not..

There are still some out there who jump reserves, but i can`t see why when you can buy more proper gear in a base store..

when it comes to canopy material there are
mostly F111 but you can have partial or the whole topskin in 0-P(zp) as option..

 

don't listen to those nay sayers...you'll be fine under your 105. just make sure to tard it the first few times.
search youtube if you need instructions on how it's done.
big advantage: every chick that hears the "swooosh" as you come in for landing will instantly get naked and start masturbating! those f111 jumpers with big ass ugly canopies hardly ever get laid....
just pick your landing accordingly to the greater forward speed.

and that f111 shit indeed does rip easier than zp or sail material. rubbish.

It has been done, but it's not recommended. Historically (generally before BASE specific canopies were manufactured), people used large 7 cell F-111 skydiving canopies (Raven, Cruiselite, etc) for BASE. With the advent of modern BASE canopies, there is no real reason to do this, although some people are still using that gear, usually in the interests of saving money (because an old used skydiving canopy is cheaper than a modern BASE canopy).



All skydiving canopies are designed for slider up openings only. Slider down openings are not a designed (or tested) aspect of any skydiving canopy.

In general, CRW canopies have fairly good openings, but they have poor landing characteristics (since on a skydive you will usually find a much better landing area than on a BASE jump).



Most BASE canopies are all F-111. Some of them are made with partial ZP (usually either on the topskin or the front third of the topskin). There are some other canopy materials in use (low bulk material in the Trango, for example), and there have also been a few experimental all ZP BASE canopies. In general, the concern with an all ZP canopy is the openings, although packing would also be much more difficult (meaning that the opening heading would likely be worse).



Yes, but not many. There are two major problem areas.

First, most kites are not reinforced for slider down openings. This could lead to a catastrophic failure, which is unacceptable in the BASE environment (one parachute at low altitude).

Second the (much) higher performance wings do not have the on-heading performance of BASE canopies, as a result of their higher performance design (and materials). Off heading opening is a major danger in BASE, and any design that can reduce it is eagerly sought after. Likewise, designs that would increase off headings are generally not received well.



Why would you want one of those? Pilot chutes are designed for fast, consistent opening, stability and compact size when stowed. Kites meet none of these critical design criteria.



No. It has been done (as have various other reserve systems) but the low opening altitude of most BASE jumps makes using a reserve a practical impossibility due to time/altitude constraints.


It sounds like you are trying to re-invent an activity (BASE) that you have not yet participated in. While I applaud your creativity, I'd suggest you follow a more conservative approach, by becoming proficient in the standard techniques now used before trying to pioneer new ones.

There are many experienced BASE jumpers in your area. I urge you to contact them for guidance before attempting any BASE jump.

My experience is when you get yourself new gear, to look at the designer who built the rig, what kind of bodyshape they have compare to yourself! They had a tendency to built rigs that fit them selves! Marta is small and slim, and Im sure she would have the best design for a small girl. Marta is part of Apex now!

 
If your looking for a smaller canopy I have some Raven 2's that you can have cheep. they're even pink.

Lee

Looking good is all relative... I think landing safe is pleasing for me and the sport.

That being said, it is still all relative.

much luck and still to you in yoru endeavor

Is everyone being real nice because
the assumption is that at 105 pounds
it must be a chick?

Could just as easily be 105 pounds
of dipshit male who happens to be
really short and thin...

> Is everyone being real nice because the assumption is that at 105 pounds it must be a chick? Could just as easily be 105 pounds of dipshit male who happens to be really short and thin...
——————————————————————————————
My latest student weighs 45 kg - 99 lb, yes, he is short and thin, and I got him buying a Troll 205, and he flies fu(king good under it
Yes, this human being of 45 kg - 99 lb of weight is a BLOKE

What you got him buying was like a 220 dude. Morpheus measuring method is all jacked compared to others. I met a gal who was jumping some 180 ft something made by morpheus and when we layed it out with my Raven 2 the 180' wasn't much smaller.

Does it not concern anyone else that this prospective jumper has personally not done the slightest bit of research before seriously thinking about BASE jumping or even posting on the boards.

All of the questions this jumper has asked have more than been answered in the detailed and numerous articles on this website, or simply by using the search function on the forums. I couldn’t be sure tho if that includes “need it to be visually pleasing for video and stills.”

Hasn’t this attitude towards BASE resulted in a multitude of discussions on the concerns of these newcomers to the sport, especially from the older jumpers.

I hate that my first post on these forums had to be one of disgust and disappointment. I just couldn’t sit by without pointing out the obvious fact that this person has not attempted to learn anything about the sport, its equipment and I can only assume its ethics and history.

Please correct me if I'm wrong and I hope that I am for everyone’s sake. /drama off

Weightless

 

I like to think skydiving as a normal Ferrari and BASE as a Enzo Ferrari.
Something that money cant buy, its not a right but a privilege. Ferrari have to know you, accept you and then decide if you deserve to own one.

I’m not saying the sport should be regulated by any means at all, but what I am saying is that BASE jumping should be approached when the knowledge, skills and understanding are in place.

But hey maybe I am living in the past.

Okay mabye I'm not giving you guys enought info. I'm not actually getting into base jumping. Well its debatable.


I plan to be landing in a very flat wide open area with about. Eight hundred feet of altitude. But I need something that will open fast. It will be wide open air similar to a skydive landing area. But there could be a possibility of a sight head wind. So I don't want to be backing up.



And as far as the pilot chute being kite material or sail... It has way more porosity. It is a waaaaay wiser choice in my mind.



I dont have time so go through all of the threads however I am going to seek professional training and guidance. I know how dangerous this sport is and im not that stupid.



And yes I am a chick.

And it is common knowledge that base isn't regulated like skydiving. But with that same respect, it has a possibility to attract and retain a larger following of people.

The lack of regulation remains as one of the great aspects of the sport. The complete and total responsibility of your personal saftey remains in your own choices and actions. Its this lack of regulation and personal choice that allows true freedom.

Sorry if i insulted you it wasn't a personal attack per say.

P.s Just because someone is small doesn't always mean there a chick im only 54kg (120lbs for the Americans)

Sorry I confused you guys i didn't want to give away too much info...

maybe i'm misrepresenting myself. I'm not actually looking to jump off of bridges, antennas, cliffs or buildings. Not yet anyways..... But i am doing something else that requires knowledge of base like fast openings, preferably on heading....

I dont want a boat because theres a slight possibility of a headwind. Landing will be open area no shrubs, bushes, rocks or trees....




So what would you reccomend? What can I get away with?

At that altitude, I'd use an F-111 PC.




DANGER! See product recall here for a PC constructed with what a material that was more similar to kite or sail material than standard ZP.



Then I recommend you prove that by listening to the folks who have tried, tested, and even recalled products that you are saying would be "waaaaay wiser" without having any experience to base that opinion on.


With the jump as you describe it, any modern BASE gear will perform just fine. If it's a one time jump, you can probably find good gear local to you and just borrow it. There is no need to try re-inventing the wheel for something that is a long way inside the envelope of "standard" BASE jumping criteria.

if it is that wide open, and you aren't jumping off a Building, Antenna, Span, or Earth, it sounds like a low altitude skydive. if so, it is regulated.

I'm guessing you will get mediocre advice unless you provide better information regarding your idea. I'd think you ought to open up to someone (not me) or conduct your own research (i.e. read articles on this site) to prevent flawed recommendations.

Ok, I've been trying to stay out of this, but my experience does not support this at all, and since I actually have experienced this myself I feel I have an actual foundation for my opinion.

While I understand Dwain's "naked body weight + 100" rule, in _my_ experience of being a small jumper that rule does not work well at all.

Putting a 105lbs person under a 205sqft canopy gives a wing loading of .51. From what I remember most manufacturers don't recommend anything lighter than a .6 wing loading.

Bigger is better...to a point. You guys that weigh over 160lbs are not really ever going to experience under loading a canopy _that_ much because, well, they don't make them that big.

Once I got on a 180 Troll...wow. It was so much better. Imagine having control over a base canopy. You seriously lose so much when you don't have any air speed.

BTW small canopies open up a whole new can of worms with low altitude jumps and PCs, but if anyone's looking at jumping a small canopy with a 42"+ PC, let me know so I can let you know how much it can suck...

i`m with you with this one...one need cell pressure to fly a canopy...im 175 and was use to 280-300canopies, now i have change to a 260 and wow...more response,much better glide ratio...and even softer landings than my other big ones, and im the one who always suported the "big is better", but not anymore...big is not always better

Sounds like a balloon jump to me.

But I think the untouched factor here is the desire for a headwind. Why? And also remember that "slight headwind" in this sport aren't the same numbers as "slight headwind" in skydiving.

If you are going for a jump in this size range, I would reccomend using BASE specific gear loaded at .6:1 to 0.8:1. I've always been told .7:1 is prime, but if you have no risk of object strike and landing area is beautiful as you describe you can certainly go a little heavier, but a little lighter would be JUST FINE TOO. This altitude is a scary place, even for seasoned base jumpers, it's right in the "do I used a slider, or don't I" range. Since you have no experience in BASE, I would suggest any base gear setup Slider OFF and give yourself a 2 or 3 second delay with a 38" or 42" pc (I like AV ZeroP, but thats just me. any base specific pc will perform great). Better safe than sorry. Plus since you probably aren't fluent in expedited opening to landing situations, the extra canopy time will be good to have.

Oh, and just incase you don't realize it, you are portraying yourself as either:

1> a base jumper trying to get a rise out of the rest of us.

or

2> One of dozens of people who appear, ask these questions, and get the exact same responses: read the HOW TO GET INTO BASE articles that are stuck to thetop of these threads.

Come to think of it... you may be in one of the few situations where an old Sorcerer rig would excel. If you can get one, do a go and throw with a 42"(NO DELAY)... this way if shit goes ugly you still have a backup canopy.

Oh, and one more thing: You don't have time to read safetly material?! :) It was nice knowing you.

First you say you are "looking to get into base jumping".

Then you back peddle and say you're not.


I can recommend two ways for you to make your jump with some degree of success and safety.

1) Find a local BASE jumper with significant experience and who is willing to mentor you.

2) Jump through the normal hoops, take an FJC, and learn something.

Asking how to, here, is just plain stupid.

that my friends, is a nugget!

What is your experience landing in technical areas (by which I mean landing areas that require you to sink into broken ground in at least part brakes)?

"Putting a 105lbs person under a 205sqft canopy gives a wing loading of .51. From what I remember most manufacturers don't recommend anything lighter than a .6 wing loading. "
________________________________________________

105Ib person + 30Ibs of equipment, camera, armour, boots etc : 135Ibs/205sqft = 0.65

Rgds

John

The Troll is available in five precisely scaled sizes:
185 ft.2 = PIA spec 200
# 205 ft.2 = PIA spec 219
# 225 ft.2 = PIA spec 240
# 245 ft.2 = PIA spec 260
# 265 ft.2 = PIA spec 282
# 285 ft.2 = PIA spec 301
# 305 ft.2 = PIA spec 322

i'm confused, what is this argument about?

I have urban jumps as well as some tight 'natural' areas. No, I don't have tons of these type of jumps, but it's pretty obvious that I'm going to have a better chance of hitting that landing area with an appropriate forward speed to downward speed ratio. Also, the turning time is ridiculous on super low loaded wings. Most of my jumps have been on a canopy loaded under .6. It has never hurt me, but I would never take it to an object that didn't have a landing area directly under it or have a low risk of object strike.

When I get out there I'll let you watch the difference between my .7 loaded wing and my .55 loaded wing. It's kind of an ohhh, duh once you see it.

I'm obviously not the only one that's found this. I know that Marta E. jumps a 177 Dagger, and while I know she is small, I'm pretty sure she weighs more than 77lbs. I also know she jumps other canopies.

But seriously too light of a wing loading is dangerous too.

Pick up your base canopy, now go pick up your skydiving canopy, just the canopies. (I'm assuming your skydiving canopy is quite a bit smaller.)

A canopy 1/3 of the size will have 1/3 of the weight.

My typical gear weight is about 10-15lbs.


I don't get how this makes any difference. We've been talking about putting a 105lb jumper under a 205...so what if that means a 185 troll?

I have a 180 Troll, not 185 (not that it really matters), but I also don't weigh 105lbs either. So me under a 195 (PIA spec) is pretty close to a 105lb person under a 170 (PIA spec).

I've got at least 75 jumps on a 245 @ ~.57 (another 75 or 100 on it around .67) and haven't encountered anything like that. If I'm going to be landing on a 2 lane street, parking garage, car filled parking lot, etc then I will only jump this canopy.

Also, according to naked weight + 100 I should be jumping a 225 (I have a 220) but I still prefer the 245 for horrible landing areas.

The flying style is definitely different on a lightly loaded canopy and it took me a little while to get used to, but imo it's very beneficial/safe, especially if you prefer high risk jumps.

What about tight landing areas that you have to 'get' to? As in, not the 2 lane street next to the building you just jumped off of.

Have you measured your turn time/altitude taken for a 180 degree turn--the kind you'd have to make in case of an object strike?

If you have a total wing loading of ~.57 under a 245 and your naked weight is 125, you are also calculating about 15lbs of gear, correct? Using a 245 means your canopy weighs about 8.5lbs. If you have a 6.5lbs rig, where can I get one?

I'm really not trying to be snobby or sarcastic with those questions. I really want to know your honest answers.

I've never had a problem. Any time I jump a horrible landing area there isn't any wind. In CRW I don't notice a different in glide ratio between me under a 245 (.57-58WL) and my buddy who's under the exact same model/size/etc canopy at .65+. If you're jumping with a decent wind then yeah it may give you a problem, but I jump easier objects in those conditions. Btw most of my urban landing areas aren't directly under the object.


Why does time matter? On a lightly loaded canopy everything happens slower - that's one of the huge advantages. I've had a 180 on a slightly overhung cliff before and had no problem turning it around. I also didn't know what was going on for about a second after opening when my chin was pinned to my chest. If you give me an email and I can find the video I can show you how fast a canopy can turn. I think Andrew may have a copy of it.


My 245 v-tec Fox in a Vision weighs 14lbs and my 220 CUS Blackjack in a WSX weighs 16lbs. Fully clothed in boots I weighed in at 128lbs, which puts me at 142lbs fully geared up so my WL is .58 instead of .57. I don't wear body armor so don't have any added weight there.



no worries