Basejumper.com - archive

Since the discussion in the static line thread I've been thinking about this "+friction".
And as nobody seems to know, I thought i should figure it out.

So, parts have been orderd to test this (and other stuff I have wanted answers on about tensile strengths).

But what needs to be tested?
I have plans for testing the following;

"Frictionfree" CWY setup
a) In a low friction environment such as carabiner.
b) In a no friction at all environment such as a pulley (If I have one or can find one)
c) On a square surface
d) On a square sufrace with more friction (griptape?)
e) On a square surface with even more friction (sandpaper or something as surface)
f) How much force is needed to tear apart the CWY-part from the dacron (of course this depends on the stitches)

And then I will do the same tests on the other CWY setup that is discussed in the thread (the one arm of dacron directly attached to the bridle)
And lets see what kind of numbers we get.

I will be using a 300 kg crane scale that has "peak load" function, a winch, and a 500 kg counterweight for the test.
I can add another 500 kg counterweight but the the scale won't handle it, so breaking the dacron can be done but I won't get any numbers on it.

The plan is to test the static load as the dynamic load will be different for each jumpers weight, the lenght of the lines, and where on the bridle you tie the breakcord.

What other tests would you want to be done regarding the CWY setup/thread?
Lets start there, and later I might test other stuff if it's within reason

Can you test for paranoia and possibly stupidity?

It seems far to many people complicate a very simple deployment method for no reason.
You guys really think that if they even notice the small bit of rope used to tie off they will automatically think BASE jumpers?
And if they do, do you really think they will spend enough money on increasing security to stop the odd BASE jumper.


What a crock of shit!

I think your time could be much better used overcomplicating other mundane tasks such as tying your shoelace or you could build lead lined hats to stop the CIA from reading your mind.

I think what hooligan is trying to say is that he thinks that the CWY shouldnt be tested as it is not as popular as a normal SL.
Test the Normal SL 1st, and then the CWA and then compare.
Take care,
space

I know of a site that has literally hundreds of left over "static line" rolls of electrical tape left on it. Perhaps Hooligan thinks that it's no big deal if we leave our trash hanging all over objects like that. Even leaving aside stealth considerations, I personally just find it distasteful to litter that way.

Tom, he makes another point in his post besides the one that "nobody is paying attention to your breakcord" - he is saying keep it simple because if you overcomplicate there may be failures that incur that wouldnt otherwise. This is how I read his view at least.

I am curious in your view - Do you not agree that the cwy sl set up is overcomplicated to the point that there could possibly be failures that wouldnt present in simply tying off?

I like your leave no trace attitude by the way.

Simply tying off isn't so simple.

Properly done, a carry on static line system will involve _far_ less rigging at the exit point than a "simple tying off".

If you can do the rigging at home, with no pressure, and in full light, that's going to be a lot less likely to generate a rigging error than a system tied up at the exit point, in the dark, with all the pressures of the jump.

Talking about paranoia? Who just created a new account to write one post?

But apart from that, yes my plan to test eletrictape too.
I had plans to test how 3, 4 and 5 wraps hold. As far as I know four wraps is the normal?
I did not mention this as I didn't think there was any intresst in it, but sure I will add that to the list.

And to me the breakcord vs. tape is not about leaving trace.

Bugger all to do with anything except over complicating a very simple process. A bit like getting on a flight now due to massive paranoia.

To much hassle to remove some of the old attachment points when you are up there next time or just to lazy?


God bless McBASE.

I think it's simpler to do the rigging work at home, in comfort, with good light and no pressure. It seems to me that rigging the static line up at the exit point is more likely to create a mistake.

"Carry on" doesn't just mean "carry away from the object." It also means "carry to the object pre-rigged."

Would it also be "simpler" to pack your rig at the exit point? How long do you want to spend sitting up there exposed to every passing set of headlights?



I assume just too lazy. I know of people who've left two sets on back to back loads. You'd have to ask the individual people leaving them what their thinking is, though.