katzurki 0 #1 January 24, 2005 I am finally about to order a new container, and it's come to the question of choosing the reserve size. I am choosing between a Quick and a Smart, the pun aside. Quick 220 pack volume is 364 inch^3, and it puts me at 1:1 or a little under. However, the Smart that has a similar packing volume (of 360 inch^3) is a 150. That's a 70 sq. ft difference which I guess is taken up by all the reinforcement material on the Smart (or why else would it pack so drastically bigger?) So am I better off under a (I assume) weaker, bigger footage reserve (Quick 220), or stronger, smaller footage (not going below Smart 170 in any case) ? According to the specs I would not overload either one. Does anyone have anything negative to say about the Quick? For the reference, the manufacturer quoted 338 inch^3 for Quick 180, and 364 inch^3 for Quick 220. Stronger and bigger is the obvious answer, so let's disregard that option...for now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badlock 0 #2 January 24, 2005 Go with the Paratec Speed 2000 - packs small but is stronger than the most other reserves out there because of its smart design. Don't be a Lutz! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
katzurki 0 #3 January 24, 2005 QuoteGo with the Paratec Speed 2000 - packs small but is stronger than the most other reserves out there because of its smart design. Edit: yeah, I tried a different browser and their site yielded the information. A Speed 220 packs as small as 344 inch^3! What's the catch already? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityGirl 0 #4 January 24, 2005 Stronger and Bigger might be what the Smart is offering. The measuring technique may be different for the two canopies you are looking at. We have a good track record with the Smart Reserve so far. They are making a strong impression on the international market. So the perceived value on the Smart will be higher, making it better for resale. I'll put my Mom on a Smart Reserve any day. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace and Blue Skies! Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
katzurki 0 #5 January 24, 2005 I know Smart is good :) ok, just talked it over with my instructor who says I'll be good under a Quick 180. So I'll be getting a Smart 175, since it's same footage and built stronger. Huzzah! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fab 0 #6 January 24, 2005 I see you're jumping a hornet 170 at a loading of 1.3..makes appr. the same weight as me. Have flown a smart 175 and its a good choice. This size is very forgiving..flies outstanding...landing are so easy. I ordered a smart 175 first..then demoed one..If I ordered the smart after the demo I would have gone one or two sizes smaller probably _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #7 January 24, 2005 QuoteGo with the Paratec Speed 2000 - packs small but is stronger than the most other reserves out there because of its smart design. What do you base this statement on. They are tested to the same standard to receive a US TSO. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
katzurki 0 #8 January 24, 2005 QuoteI see you're jumping a hornet 170 at a loading of 1.3..makes appr. the same weight as me. Have flown a smart 175 and its a good choice. This size is very forgiving..flies outstanding...landing are so easy. I ordered a smart 175 first..then demoed one..If I ordered the smart after the demo I would have gone one or two sizes smaller probably Thanks for firsthand experience, this is additional reassurance. A 175 is at the margin of comfort for me though, can't go smaller than that... So why you don't see many people using Quick/Speed if theyt pack that small? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,439 #9 January 24, 2005 If you're loading a 170 at 1.3 with 47 jumps, I'd strongly recommend that you get a bigger reserve. You're still learning many skills having to do with canopy control. If you're landing with a reserve, your concentration is probably already shot from the adrenaline of having to use it. Plus, you might not be landing where you're used to (you did plan on landing where you could see your main, right? Or plan on the fact that with a reserve ride your opening height is lower?). Jump a reserve that you load at 1.1 or less until you're very skilled at the higher loading. I'll leave the discussion on whether you want to load your main to that to a different forum. But you don't want to be jumping an aggressive canopy on the worst landing conditions you've had so far in your jumping career. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fab 0 #10 January 24, 2005 Quote Thanks for firsthand experience, this is additional reassurance. A 175 is at the margin of comfort for me though, can't go smaller than that... Didn't look at your jumbnumbers. I jumped a 175 with a wl of 1.2 at 110 jumps.. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
katzurki 0 #11 January 24, 2005 Hi Wendy, That's exactly why I contemplated getting a 220 sqft reserve! However, my instructor, who's been my main AFFI and coaching me ever since, is sure I will be fine under a 175. That 175 still packs way bigger than a Quick/Speed 220. So is there any reason I should _not_ get one? What's the catch with it packing so small? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,439 #12 January 24, 2005 If you're doing freeflying (fast openings on accidental deployment) or CRW (more frequent use), then I'd consider something heavier duty. But with a 220, even a fair amount of damage (short of the whole thing turning to rags) will be more survivable than with a 175. How many reserves do you hear about blowing up? The ones I've heard of (and I'm NO EXPERT) have been overloaded and going fast. By getting a 220, you're preventing the "overloaded" thing. The "too fast" is when you have it deployed by accident on a head down or some sit dives. But, again, if it's not overloaded in the first place, then you have more square footage to take the shock of a fast opening, and more square footage to compensate for any damage. People do it. But normally, they are people who have enough experience to avoid getting into situations in the first place that you don't have the experience for. There are things I won't do because I don't have the experience (jump a heavily loaded reserve, for one -- I'm just not focused enough on canopy flight -- as in several hundred jumps, and current all the time). If you're in Russia, you might have times during the year when you're not jumping due to weather. So now you're jumping a small reserve on a jump that already went to shit, and it's your third jump in 3 months. I'd go bigger. You can always go smaller, and, well, I haven't heard bad things about any reserves. Even the ones that had service bulletins (tape attachment) pretty much only had problems when overloaded and fast. That's a bad combination when your reserve has a weight and speed maximum listed on it. Wendy W. Edit to add (it's way too long already so what the heck): When you do get whichever reserve in you buy, go and watch it being assembled and packed. A reserve is a tool like any other. The less weight per square inch of fabric, and linear inch of seam, the less stress you're putting on the whole thing. Have fun with your purchase.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badlock 0 #13 January 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteGo with the Paratec Speed 2000 - packs small but is stronger than the most other reserves out there because of its smart design. What do you base this statement on. They are tested to the same standard to receive a US TSO. Sparky I base this statement on the knowledge of the Paratec tests. My rigger told me, that Paratec tested the Speed with incredbile velocities and weights. I know from one test with 300 mph and a few hundret pounds of suspended weight - the Speed 2000 "survived" the test series without damage. Don't be a Lutz! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #14 January 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteGo with the Paratec Speed 2000 - packs small but is stronger than the most other reserves out there because of its smart design. What do you base this statement on. They are tested to the same standard to receive a US TSO. Sparky I base this statement on the knowledge of the Paratec tests. My rigger told me, that Paratec tested the Speed with incredbile velocities and weights. I know from one test with 300 mph and a few hundret pounds of suspended weight - the Speed 2000 "survived" the test series without damage. Then you base your statement on what you have heard. You may want to check again on those numbers. What is it about the design that is different that any other 7 cell reserve? All TSO'd reserves are tested to at least 264 pounds at 207 mph (180 KEAS). I have conducted test on canopies from 60 KEAS to 600 KEAS and from 40 pounds to over 4800 pounds, but I don't think any sport reserve made today can take an opening at 300 mph at even 200 pounds. Oh, what aircraft did they use to do a drop at 300 mph? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badlock 0 #15 January 24, 2005 Quote Then you base your statement on what you have heard. No, this test series I saw on TV. The company-boss said in the interview something about the test speed. And I can remember, Paratec showed in a advertising clip (at the end of a festival-video) this test too. Don't be a Lutz! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #16 January 25, 2005 QuoteQuote Then you base your statement on what you have heard. No, this test series I saw on TV. The company-boss said in the interview something about the test speed. And I can remember, Paratec showed in a advertising clip (at the end of a festival-video) this test too. I think maybe you got the numbers wrong, is there a way you could check and verify them? A 300 mph deployment with "several hundred pounds" is more than a 600 knot ejection seat opening after the drouge delays and reefing. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #17 January 25, 2005 QuoteMy rigger told me These words are often, but not always followed by unproven hearsay.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #18 January 25, 2005 There has to be a reason that the canopy packs smaller. Different materials, less reenforcements, different measuring techniques... something has to actaully be different. People used to love the old Tempo reserves because they packed up "smaller" then PD reserves. Their 210 would pack just a bit larger then a PD176R. Then everyone figured out the PD's were measured different then the Tempos and had a lot more reenforcements on them then the Tempos did. Suddenly the 2 reserves were on pretty near footing if you truley compared SQ FT to SQ FT.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
