Cloudi 0 #26 July 3, 2006 QuotePD will NOT give anyone any numbers on volume. Read that as: NONE. Because no one has come up with a "reliable" method. Until then, what's the point, along with the fact that the variables will continue to exist, no matter how reliable the measuring method. We can throw numbers out there all day, but it won't solve anything, because numbers can be scewed any way you want and still not be anywhere close to correct. If you are expecting the busy manufacturers to grind what they're doing to a screeching halt so a few people will have a warm, fuzzy pack volume...don't hold your breath. You might die. They have bigger fish to fry. Again, I think it would be wonderful if the numbers were there. I'm sure it would make many lives a bit easier, but throwing numbers out there from the current methods is idiotic. If you advertise a number, you have to back it up. It currently can't be done. Kim Watch as I attempt, with no slight of hand, to apply logic and reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #27 July 3, 2006 Your friend needs to complain to the container manufacturer. I have had a customer with a too tight container when it was supposed to go. And I had one that was so oversized I could pinch two inches of free bag fabric between my fingers after the bag was closed. Both were sent back and replaced. Two different manufacturers. Both were built on based on specified canopies. My jeans analogy alluded to the fact that when I go to the store I have to try on each pair of a given waist and inseam to see if they fit. Some do some don't. Most PD reserves are in the PIA list. This list is actually better than numbers from the manufacturers. The PIA numbers were produced with as reproducible a procedure as possible. One canopy manufacturer, as I said, weighs them down and waits as long as necessary to get the smallest number to publish. Another container manufacturer does all their own testing to size their containers. I don't think on a properly sized container the canopy volume variation would be enough to matter. It's when either the customer, the dealer, or the container manufacturer pushes to the smallest container that a canopy could possibly go in, just so the customer can say he jumps an 0J instead of a j1, that we have problems. If all canopy manufactuers supplied their own volumes we would have to have a conversion factor for each to make them comparable. Much like we have to do with PD's areas.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudi 0 #28 July 3, 2006 QuoteIf all canopy manufactuers supplied their own volumes we would have to have a conversion factor for each to make them comparable. Much like we have to do with PD's areas. Exactly. Since there is no industry-wide, reliable method for pack volumes (or area for that matter), manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to provide those "all-valuable" numbers. Since many have their own methods, individual methods and marketing have come into play. Depending on the method, one canopy can measure differently, so until there is one set, industry method, the rig manufacturers know what will and won't fit into any given container. Probably not ideal, but it's all we have until some genius comes up with a better idea. Kim Watch as I attempt, with no slight of hand, to apply logic and reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #29 July 3, 2006 We have it. See http://pia.com/piapubs/TSDocuments/ts-104.pdf One person, one apparatus, one procedure. A new table of results was supposed to be published this summer.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggermick 7 #30 July 3, 2006 And I had one that was so oversized I could pinch two inches of free bag fabric between my fingers after the bag was closed. And didn't THAT manufacturer take of you! We based all of our conainer fittings on the published volume data from the canopy manufacturer. Seems they were a little slow with the new numbers for their new version of an established design. But hey that's how it goes, nothings ever set in stone when it comes to fabrics and masses, too many variables. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudi 0 #31 July 3, 2006 I'm well aware of the PIA method. It's inconsistent and it even says so. QuoteOne person, one apparatus, one procedure. So one person with one apparatus is going to measure every make, model, and size out there? Since the results vary according to a canopy's age/amount of use, shouldn't they test with a brand new canopy every time to get the maximum volume measurement? Shouldn't they also do this with older ones for the minimum volume measurement? Are canopy manufacturers going to be willing to provide these in every size, in every design? Are there any damaging effects to a canopy once it's been measured in this apparatus or does it come out good as new? Maybe the further studies they refer to and the new table of results you mention will show more consistent findings? As for PIA measurements on area, how does that method take into consideration tapering, etc. any more than any other method? It makes sense for a "square canopy," but what about semi and fully elliptical canopies? Kim Watch as I attempt, with no slight of hand, to apply logic and reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #32 July 3, 2006 Indeed he did Mick! Didn't know if you remembered. Still jump it and wish I could buy another one.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #33 July 3, 2006 It's inconsistency is why multiple determinations are done. AFAIK, so far Sandy has done all of the tests, yes. Old and new? No and I don't think it's necessary. Not that it won't change, but not enough to care. I've never paid attention to how Sandy gets the canopies. Some are submitted, or at least were, I think. I wouldn't consider the test to have any adverse effect. I'd gladly buy one tested as new. The area standard was written for rectangular canopies and a concensus on how to measure non rectangular canopies doesn't exist. Even the measurement for rectangular canopies isn't used by all, namely PD. Remember, everything that happens at PIA is done by volunteer's in their spare time. And a small number at that. Unfortunately that means some things don't happen fast. Also PIA is a collection of opinions, egos (mine included), competitors, partners, and worldwide representatives. Nothing is easy. Feel free to join the fray.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggermick 7 #34 July 4, 2006 QuoteIndeed he did Mick! Didn't know if you remembered. Still jump it and wish I could buy another one. I have a mind like a steel trap!! Call Ray Farrel He can get a new one made for you. I recently taught a hands on semenar of how to build a Reflex for his people whom have not made very many of them, focusing on the finer points of the "secret stuff". The rigs came out great. It felt good to build a rig ir two again from scratch, it's like riding a bike!! Sometimes I really miss building rigs for a living, I like being creative with my hands and mind. I'm sure Ray will accomadate you. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Timmay 0 #35 July 4, 2006 As I'm led to belive, if you choose your reserve in white (as we all should) it packs up smaller than one that is coloured. Strange but true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #36 July 4, 2006 I've never paid attention to how Sandy gets the canopies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the time, Sandy gets new canopy models off the production line. He squeezes them three times - in the official PIA measuring cylinder - then publishes results. Then he used to hand them to me and ask how well they fit in a Talon #?. Some of my conclusions could not be repeated in polite company! Hee! Hee! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #37 July 5, 2006 QuoteExactly. Since there is no industry-wide, reliable method for pack volumes (or area for that matter), manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to provide those "all-valuable" numbers. There is. Both for pack volume and area. The PIA established a standard, and PD, while being a member of that organization, has other methods.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudi 0 #38 July 6, 2006 Read what I said again. "Reliable" being the main point. I never said there wasn't a method, just that it doesn't seem to be very reliable. Kim Watch as I attempt, with no slight of hand, to apply logic and reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karlm 0 #39 July 6, 2006 Seld14 I have PM'd you in this regard Better never to have met you in my dream than to wake and reach for hands that are not there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloudi 0 #40 July 7, 2006 Did a search for Seld14 but didn't find anything...waiting for that PM... Kim Watch as I attempt, with no slight of hand, to apply logic and reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karlm 0 #41 July 7, 2006 lol ..... Typo .... it's meant to be Sled 14 not Seld14. Damn these latex gloves Better never to have met you in my dream than to wake and reach for hands that are not there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
