Basejumper.com - archive

Hey,

What do you think about using the 3 ring realease system with small rings in BASE? E.g. morpheus puts those as default to their rigs so I guess it should be fine but I'd like to hear some more opinions.

I have them on my new Ppro and they're lovely.... seriously though. Mini Rings are more "stylish". Lower profile, smaller, etc. As far as strength, well there are a few older threads on here talking about how for BASE applications they rate extremely high. The only reason many people still like regular (larger) rings is because the larger ones are less likely to bind during a cutaway.... you dont want to cutaway during a BASE jump or bad things will happen, so thats not a problem If you're in a tree, hanging from a balcony, or a light post then they will still work the way they are supposed too.....

in what sense?

i don't really care about the looks of the gear as long as I don't get a bonus free fall after canopy deploys :)


edit: I tried to search the forum for this topic but all i got was few threads about locking the 3RR system so sorry if I repeat old questions

they are totally safe to use. Both large rings and mini rings are extremely strong and will work equally. larger ones are just easier to cut away, and again... dont want that in BASE. Go with mini!!!!!!

ok, thanks for the answer.
I already have large ones in my rig but thinking of buying a second one and I might have some nice offer for a used one with small rings.

I prefer to get my containers with large rings and my risers with small rings. This allows me to always be able to put my canopies into any container (if someone comes through and wants to jump one, for example, or if I had to borrow a container), and also to use my containers for any canopy, without having to switch risers around.

Most of the modern improvements to the 3 ring system are intended to make cutting away easier under high G skydiving malfunctions. The only time I've ever wanted to cut away a BASE canopy was for water/tree landings and police in tow. Neither of those situations require anything other than the basic 3 ring system.

99% of the times that I've cut away a BASE canopy has been to switch canopies/containers around.

so would you say that the small rings (except for misrigging cases) will provide enough strength so I won't have to worry that they'll brake (regardless slider up, slider down jumps)? My exit weight is about 110 kg / 243 lbs

To my knowledge there has never been a structural failure of the ring itself (either large or small) in the BASE environment.

In either case, the small white loop at the bottom of the 3 ring assembly is going to be the most fragile component of your life support system, and in either case it is the same white loop.

I'm way outside the normal body composition compared to most base jumpers, and at 300lbs apex suggested integrated risers to rule out any chance of failure of any 3 ring riser system. Even tho failures are very very uncommon I chose that route to take one fail point out of the system

I think if you mean "Integrity" risers, the reversed type, There has not been any failures which this was supposed to fix. The weakest link in a riser assembly in the load vs. tensile strength would be the webbing that holds the small ring on that is correctly figured.. I didnt like the rw 87 main harness rings because they were so thin. Also, another thing to think about is that Sandy Reid did a study on mini riser and rings breakage. There was never any need to do it on big ring and webbing systems as they were not failing except on some tandems. I am with TA in the aspect of big rings on the harness, But I am also a type8 and big rings on the risers type of guy.
Hope this helps. Big rings on the harness is the word up.
Take care,
space

Na I ment integrated sewn in risers, no release system. Just like reserve risers in skydive systems. Knew it was not really needed, but why not eliminate one possible failure point for my big ass.

That term has become very confused.

Originally, Consolidated Rigging used "Integrity Risers" to describe their reversed style three ring.

Later, Morpheus uses the term "Integrity" to describe their sewn in risers.


For what it's worth, the real advantage of the reversed three ring is not increased strength--a normal style 3 ring is plenty strong. The issue with non-reversed rings is that the little white loop at the base of the 3 ring system (which is the most fragile component of your life support system) is dragged against the ground when you stow the lines in the tailpocket.

With a reversed ring system, the white loop is protected from abrasion by the webbing of the riser itself, which is very tough and abrasion resistant, and is the part that drags along the ground when stowing the lines in the tailpocket.

As described in the previous posts, a small 3-ring-system is totally acceptable for BASE.

Those of you who are doing or at least packing tandems will know one special problem of the large 3-ring-system:
the small and middle ring can cant/jam in the large ring. This usually happens after landing, when the riser is hanging down in the "wrong" direction. It would be a bad idea to pack a rig like this, because it would put a very high load on the white loop.
On a large ring on harness - small rings on riser combination, this kind of failure is close to impossible. This is one reason why I like this combination, especially for unpacked jumps.

Integrated - means sewn into the harness
Pro: no chance of accidental disconnect
Con: can't cutaway from tree/water/cop

Integrity - means the riser does NOT have
a hole going through it, this increases the
working load limit.

Reversed - the rings face inward to protect
the white loop and the webbing (that hold
the rings to the risers) from abraison.

your last two definitions are of the same setup :)

You "can" cutaway, use tandem slinks and cut them if you have to. Not as fast, not as easy, but cheaper than cutting a riser or lines if you have to perform a cutaway type move.

your last two definitions are of the same setup :)

I would have sworn a few years ago
I saw a French made SKY rig with
reverse risers + hole for the loop.

Tandem slinks are a good option with the direct risers (another term but meaning the risers without cutaway). Been using that configuration for last couple of hundred jumps. Speaking of which, has anybody heard or experienced any problems with using slinks in base? Especially maybe in SD base since they have not been designed for that environment. I personally have some SD jumps with tandem slinks but not enough to draw any statistical conclusions regarding their suitability there.

980 has been using the slinks for several hundred jumps now on both his rigs. He has done a lot of SD jumps with them and as far as I know he's never had any issues with them

I have used tandem slinks for sd for about 60 jumps. Used them up to 4 sec sd with no issues.