Basejumper.com - archive

 hi,

I agree with most of you about how the manufacturers has to approach to the items they build.
They have to understand the subject as best is possible ( this was not the case in Performance Variable )

They made the BASE rig and they just put the whatever canopy in to the rig with the Type 17 risers in for making photo for web site ( they were in hurry to introduce product )

This shows that they are not really ''at home'' with the base jumping in general. This simple mistake actually made to them - the worst ever advertise. I am sure that they have sold maybe few rigs since they introduce the rig.

Other subject is the future of the equipment:

Slinks, microlines, small risers, smaller canopies...
Well, why not one day!!

Keeping stubborn approach is not good and it doesn't contributing developing in any area.
Soon, I am sure, we will have smaller and lighter canopies. Also I believe that canopies and rigs will be designed for specific purpose in BASE jumping.

Slider down: Big docile canopy almost accuracy canopy with good opening characteristics.
WS: light and small canopy with good opening and deep brake fly characteristics

Rigs: WS rigs will be lighter and smaller.

However, it will take time for general BASE public to accept this toys , but I am sure it will happened.

Well, I will always look for lighter equipment on some nasty and long hikes :)

my 2 cents

Robibird


Robert

I think this is a very good discussion to have, and I don't want it to get lost in the general "mini-riser" discussion.

I've split it off from there.

I think Robert is totally right that BASE gear is diverging into wildly different sets of gear for different jumps. Wingsuit rigs (and canopies) are getting smaller, and I foresee a day when all wingsuit pilots are jumping something that looks a lot more like Robert's setup (I think it's a 170 or 190 with micro lines) than it looks like modern BASE gear.

At the same time, an American gear manufacturer has been developing a "low and slow" canopy designed only for slider off jumps.

The ideal gear for a wingsuit jump is so different from the ideal gear for a slider down solid object that, viewed objectively, they must inevitably diverge in the same way that BASE gear diverged from general skydiving gear.

BASE 428 said:

I built one of these a few years ago. All you need to do is put pile velcro along the bottom side of the large mesh slider (on the tape), then make a slider shaped (minus the corners for the grommet) piece of small hole mesh with the hook velcro on it. You can also make a sail piece. The only problem I encountered was putting the more resistant piece on top (the sail patch tended to get blown off as the slider came down). That was easily fixed by putting the "patch" on the bottom of the slider.

I constructed mine after seeing one of Space's students using one a few years ago. Not sure if the original idea was Space's, or the student's, or came from somewhere else.

The slider I'm building is a little different, but functions the same. It comes in handy if you're jumping a terminal wall, and then later in the day you move to a 3 second wall. You can switch from the sail or small hole mesh to large hole mesh for the shorter delays.

Tom, the slider design you write about was discussed with a BASE gear manufacturer earlier this year. We concluded that having the velcro exposed might catch a suspension line on opening. Do you think this would be a factor in your design?

Hi Tom. It was not my idea, it was the students, this idea was tried and dashed by DM and AF (1990?) because of the slider inverting and and insert being blown off exposing the hook and hanging material to the lines. I have since told the student to cease this practice after notification.
Are you still using this system? Any comments from the Manu´s?
Take care,
space

Nope. I mostly built it as a curiosity. I never jump with a sail slider, and only use a small hole mesh slider on about 3% of my jumps. So, the value to me was pretty limited.

Do you ever take the slider off, or do you just tie it down? How particular are you about where you land/pack?

In the environments that I find myself in, I don't think it would be a good option. I don't have a dedicated slider-up rig and a dedicate slider-off rig, so find myself switching it back and forth a fair amount. Just considering the possible effects of dirt, dust, water and rocks on a slink and I quickly find myself a lot more comfortable working with a metal link.

Then again, maybe I just like being able to take a wrench to my rig...

Mark

I leave my sliders on and tie them down on slider down jumps. I think taking it off and on is waste of time. You open yourself up for rigging errors, by taking it off and on. I go from slider up to slider down all the the time, and simply run some short pieces of old line through the riser opening at the slink to tie it off with. It hasn't shown any wear on the riser or slink from tying it off this way. Having it tied on also gives you a cross-link in case one riser fails. I 've jump into water with them and have jumped a lot in sandy areas near our coast. I haven'y noticed any wear on th slinks from them. Treat them just like your lines, don't pack where you will thrash your lines and your slinks will be fine. I've packed outdoors in the grass many times and it seemed fine. i think the worst situtation is some of the packing tarps at some of the dz's near the coast. They get covered in light sand and grind into your lines against the nylon of the tarp. Just brush the area clear or use a packing mat. Quite frankly my lines are looking worse for the wear than the slinks are and they were new at about the same time. They work great for me in my enviroment, but like I said i leave my slider on at all times. If you have to take it off and on, it might be easier to use metal links. They're simple and work great in my opinion.(slinks that is)

peace
Mike

Are you saying you have 250 to 300 jumps on the original set of Slinks on each rig?

If not, how often do you replace them.


Has this been tested and published in the BASE environment? And if so, why aren't they standard on rigs just like the wide risers, opposed to the mini risers, which seem to have been proven inferior?


I ask this because of your disclaimer statement at the end of your post.

I'm just curious.

Thanks
Rod

250+ divided between two sets of slinks. About evenly split. Pd Reserve slinks have been proved to be stronger than #5 metal links which are the standerd on BASE rigs. The disclaimer is for just stating my opinion. I'll probabily change them the same time I would get new lines, though the lines are wearing at a higher rate. The slinks are still in great shape. They don't see much sunlight in my neck of the woods and haven't been too abused packing outdoors. In the chain of gear that saves my life, they seem to be a very strong link. No slider bumpers also removes a link that can and has caused malfunctions.


There was a post by Adam from CR, stating the advantages and disadvantages of slinks from his point of view. i don't know how to copy that link over to here though.

Here you go.

Just out of curiousity, does anybody know how much testing PD did on their reserve slinks where they similated something you might run across in a BASE enviroment (i.e. mud, water, dust, sand, etc getting ground into the slink upon landing in a sketchy landing area) ? Seems like an amount of dirt/water being grinded into the slink over a period of time would decrease the integrity.

I thought riser-inserts work pretty well for that?

 
>Slinks, microlines, small risers, smaller canopies...
>Well, why not one day!!

>Keeping stubborn approach is not good and it >doesn't contributing developing in any area.

GOING BACKWARDS . . .

Bringing a bunch of cheesy skydiving stuff to BASE jumping isn’t innovative.

In fact, it should be the other way around, if skydivers used stronger, cleaner, less complicated gear not so many of them would be dying. Making gear smaller and lighter is all skydiving manufactures can do before they have to re-write the manuals, and in the case of TSO’d gear, go through the whole rigmarole, and spend the money, in the FAA shake and bake process.

BASE riggers and manufactures are not so encumbered and have always been free to dream, cut, and sew in the afternoon and then just go try it later that night. One of the reasons you are so comfortable jumping a single canopy system right now is we (not me in particular) figured out a long time ago if you build BASE gear to be simpler to use, cleaner in design, and let the function follow the form, then you just did away with about 99 reasons why you need a reserve in the first place.

In addition, the one canopy you are BASE jumping is so tough you can hang a truck on it. Sure, I’ll take a chance and jump my Stiletto once or twice without a reserve, when I’m getting paid for it. On the other hand I’ll fun-a-way to my skydiving seven cell reserve because I know between me and my knife, no matter what happens, I’ll most likely have something landable at the end.

Once you go smaller (and less docile) and then break a line, split a seam, or blow a rib it’s a whole new design and you are the test pilot. Plus BASE canopies still get stashed in the bushes and slammed in car doors and trunks. There aren’t that many manicured lawns in the BASE world.

Over the years I’ve been lucky enough to be around some of the brightest minds in gear manufacturing and believe me, you can’t say they aren’t innovative. In fact, we owe them a debt of gratitude for what they didn’t bring to market. I remember Todd came up to me once and said, hey Nick, look at this, and then after he explained it to me, I was floored, this was it, this is the answer, and he smiled and said, “not for a few years yet, buddy, keep it to yourself.”

Cooler (and better) things are coming . . .

Nick
BASE 194

>where the silicone slider bumper came off on deplyoment and slid up the lines and choked off the slider as it was coming down. This resulted in a cutaway and reserve deployment.<

Gee, run a needle and some waxed cord around the slider bumper and the connector link . . .

Hello?

Nick
BASE 194

a freind of mine who is skydiver,but built tools all day long actualy has qustioniesed our metal links.He think we use to small rills(sorry word,the one around that secure/close the link)thinking of what normaly demands are out side skywold.His consern were that we could even blow a metal link(i saw 3(2 from same canopy opening)which were blown in a regular skydive(RW jump).A concerne to think of,in BASE it would be a fatality for sure...

im not a brain in such,i just wanted to pass the info/consern i talked about whith a guy who is experiened in tool making and skydiving.
He recoment to buy metal links were thouse rills(again) are 1/3 of the linkas a minimum.

personaly i use slinks at my skydive gear,unless some one buys it soon,and metal links at both my BASE rigs

 
Gee, run a needle and some waxed cord around the slider bumper and the connector link . .

 GOING BACKWARDS . . .

Bringing a bunch of cheesy skydiving stuff to BASE jumping isn't innovative.

In fact, it should be the other way around, if skydivers used stronger,
cleaner, less complicated gear not so many of them would be dying. Making
gear smaller and lighter is all skydiving manufactures can do before they
have to re-write the manuals, and in the case of TSO'd gear, go
through the whole rigmarole, and spend the money, in the FAA shake and bake
process.
_________________________________________________

OK, so you say that skydiving community has to follow the BASE
manufactures. Well, this is very interesting statement. If this would be
the case, trough all this years we would still be jumping Strato-Clouds,
Stratostar and other ''state of the art'' ram-air canopies, and for many
years. Please explain me what is complicated in skydiving equipment?!
TSO and other papers, '' law hassle'', etc. are here not because skydivers
want them, it because of the overall legal system (and related aviation and
skydiving regulations) most countries have.
Luckily BASE manufacturers do not have to deal with that, and if they would
they would not exist at all.
Do not forget that BASE manufacturers actually benefited because skydiving
equipment manufacturers learned how to meet those standards with the
technology that is advancing every day. And don't forget that those
standards and regulations are primarily dealing with safety issues of those
people using that equipment. Also, have in mind that most of technology and
know-how for skydiving equipment was simply transferred to the BASE
equipment production. And thanks to that, all BASE equipment can easily
comply with standards for skydiving equipment.
_________________________________________________

BASE riggers and manufactures are not so encumbered and have always been
free to dream, cut, and sew in the afternoon and then just go try it later
that night. One of the reasons you are so comfortable jumping a single
canopy system right now is we (not me in particular) figured out a long
time ago if you build BASE gear to be simpler to use, cleaner in design,
and let the function follow the form, then you just did away with about 99
reasons why you need a reserve in the first place.
______________________________________________

IMHO, BASE jumpers and riggers were those people who had passion and were brave enough
to try to jump low object and smart enough to adjust their SKYDIVING gear
in such way to survive the jump. With time, number of those people started
to grow and only then those who had abilities and knowledge started with
modifications of existing skydiving equipment, and finally, with production
of BASE equipment. Actually, BASE was almost never a separate sport or
activity; it had always kept close relations with skydiving.
BASE jumping canopies (now talking about canopies) started to change
recently, in last 5 years or so, pretty much because of competition among
BASE manufactures and drastically increased interest in BASE. Five years
ago it was absolutely normal to see some Pegasus, Ravens or similar 7 cell
canopies. Nowadays this is considered as unacceptable, right?
If you look to the BASE canopy in particular, you'll see that there were no
major improvements in airfoils or shapes. I don't think that we have
already found the best airfoil, shape or and best materials. Reasons are,
IMHO, lack of money, small market and very, very conservative approach to
BASE activities. I agree, it has to be a bit conservative, but to be
strongly against some everything new that is coming in to the sport.... ?
_______________________________________________

In addition, the one canopy you are BASE jumping is so tough you can hang a
truck on it. Sure, I'll take a chance and jump my Stiletto once or
twice without a reserve, when I'm getting paid for it. On the other
hand I'll fun-a-way to my skydiving seven cell reserve because I know
between me and my knife, no matter what happens, I'll most likely
have something landable at the end.
_______________________________________________

Well, we have trucks of different sizes, don't we? Standards, which
skydiving equipment has to meet, are well known and as long as the new
stuff does not meet those standards, specific canopy or rig will not be
ready for sale. These are the reasons why I think that discussion about how
strong something should be is completely irrelevant. It is all about
technology and, for instance type of fold, strength of used materials,
reinforcing systems and load distribution. I think that 99% of the new
jumpers who came to the sport in last two years would refuse to jump some
Ravens or Pegasus, even though those canopies were the best at their time
and were able to hold the truck too.
_________________________________________________

Once you go smaller (and less docile) and then break a line, split a seam,
or blow a rib it's a whole new design and you are the test pilot.
Plus BASE canopies still get stashed in the bushes and slammed in car doors
and trunks. There aren't that many manicured lawns in the BASE world.
Over the years I've been lucky enough to be around some of the
brightest minds in gear manufacturing and believe me, you can't say
they aren't innovative. In fact, we owe them a debt of gratitude for
what they didn't bring to market. I remember Todd came up to me once
and said, hey Nick, look at this, and then after he explained it to me, I
was floored, this was it, this is the answer, and he smiled and said,
not for a few years
yet, buddy, keep it to yourself.
_________________________________________________

Agree, I never said anything against those people. In contrary, they have
and will always have my support. I can only applaud to those who invented
the tail gate, multi, V-tec, MDV or Vented PC or many other things, but I am all for
let people be creative and explore the limit.
Why should we not try to introduce some performance of modern skydiving
canopies in BASE? If we can do that with same or even increased safety
level, BASE could only benefit from that.
__________________________________________________

Cooler (and better) things are coming . . .
________________________________________________
Yes they are coming , but not from the Mars....


Regards
Robibird

Probably very little. There's not much need for that kind of testing on something that goes into a reserve.

PD and others test this.....

I believe enough to get approval.
What you think how many jumpers / riggers / skydivers knows for how much, or how tight links has to be screwed in in order to hold good grip, but not to brake under the pressure.

Believe me many people think ''more tight is better''
Well.... Personally I saw 5 cases were link blow up after being tight to much ( in skydiving though ] .

Ahoj

A canopy that can fly backwards? That'd be nice.

I know several people who are working on that.

In theory, if you put airlocks on the front of a canopy, and valved secondary inlets on the bottom skin (and perhaps airlocks on the tail, as well), you ought to be able to create a canopy that can "slip" backward (in the same way a round moves when you pull a side down to spill air) without deflating.

I agree with Nick. Cooler--and safer--things are on the way.

wouldnt that request 4 controllines? and could give problems as:bigger chance for lineover,more dificult packjob and onheadding problems...

would that be worth it to the realative few times you want to use this mod???

I don't think so. You would just use riser input to control the canopy when you wanted it to "slide".

In theory, you wouldn't really need to modify you reactions very much. If you opened facing an object, you'd just grab both rear risers and pull. The canopy would spill air out the front (but remain inflated), and slide away from the wall. It's essentially the same thing we are doing now, but we'd lose a lot less altitude, because the canopy wouldn't deflate during the process.

your talking about making a canopy that cant stall,but can fly backwards? wow if that should be the meaning.
but sounds great if it can work

I think it would technically still be "stalled" when viewed as a wing.

The difference is that a traditional ram air parachute deflates when stalled, so that it loses the majority of it's aerodynamic deceleration properties. In other words, it's no longer working as a wing (square parachute), and it's pretty lousy as a round parachute, too.

This design could, in theory, create a canopy that flew like a square in the forward direction, but could be "flown" (moved by spilling air, as a round is, actually) as a round in the backward direction. As a side benefit, such a design might also be able to open in a "stall", but still open (as a round). This would mean that you could set your brakes so deep that the canopy could have literally zero forward speed on opening (if you screwed it up the canopy could actually open in a sustainable backslide).

The next step would be adjusting the trim such that it could move in a sideways direction as well, but I think that would take a lot of work on the trim, and sacrifice a great many positive forward flight characteristics.