Tight fitting reserve Pros & Cons

[potatoman 0]

As the topic.

I am getting new gear, but would prefer the reserve to be a bit bigger than the main. From the manufacturer, they say the bigger reserve will fit, but fairly tight fit.

I am questioning:
would it damage the container/flaps over time being very tight, stitching etc.
Any slower opening, or bigger chance of not opening in time.
My reserve packer going to swear at me.
Other pros/cons?

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you how Fu***** stupid it is.
Davelepka - "This isn't an x-box, or a Chevy truck forum"
Whatever you do, don't listen to ChrisD.

[nigel99 505]

Maybe PM John Sherman?

I know there is a theory (it makes sense) that a tight reserve will take more force to extract and therefore could take longer to deploy.

I have no direct experience with it though, and tight is relative. Surely the rig manufacturers 'approve' the container and reserve combinations?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[councilman24 37]

yes to all.

The biggest danger is that it may not fit at all. Canopy volume can vary by 10% between individual examples of identical models. In addition containers can vary somewhat also. So if you get a big reserve and a small container an individual set of components may not go together even though another set of the same models may not.

Do not get the absolute biggest reserve that the manufacturer says will fit. First it may not. Second the rigger will be cursing you. As to whether it will work? Its supposed to but be aware that you will probably be the test jumper. Not all combinations of reserves and containers are tested. Being at the top end may also encourage the rigger to put a loop that is too long in the rig. This can lead to AAD fires not opening as fast (or not at all) as an appropriate loop size.

Just all round a bad idea. But lots of folks do it. And I turn some away.

Chose the reserve you should have, then the container size that it fits in well. If necessary there are a couple of reserves that are lower pack volume for the same size.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[potatoman 0]

Thanx council.

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you how Fu***** stupid it is.
Davelepka - "This isn't an x-box, or a Chevy truck forum"
Whatever you do, don't listen to ChrisD.

[nigel99 505]

Quote

yes to all.

The biggest danger is that it may not fit at all. Canopy volume can vary by 10% between individual examples of identical models. In addition containers can vary somewhat also. So if you get a big reserve and a small container an individual set of components may not go together even though another set of the same models may not.

Do not get the absolute biggest reserve that the manufacturer says will fit. First it may not. Second the rigger will be cursing you. As to whether it will work? Its supposed to but be aware that you will probably be the test jumper. Not all combinations of reserves and containers are tested. Being at the top end may also encourage the rigger to put a loop that is too long in the rig. This can lead to AAD fires not opening as fast (or not at all) as an appropriate loop size.

Just all round a bad idea. But lots of folks do it. And I turn some away.

Chose the reserve you should have, then the container size that it fits in well. If necessary there are a couple of reserves that are lower pack volume for the same size.

Councilman - doesn't the TSO cover the 'system'? Surely the reserve deployment (3 seconds/300 feet) is highly dependant on the container used?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[potatoman 0]

You can pretty much make up your own reserve, main, container. I doubt it would ever work to have the container TSO'd against ALL available reserves out there. I might be wrong, but it could be done size wise. Container to reserve size, min/max sizes.

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you how Fu***** stupid it is.
Davelepka - "This isn't an x-box, or a Chevy truck forum"
Whatever you do, don't listen to ChrisD.

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

doesn't the TSO cover the 'system?

If that were so, how on earth would manufacturers like UPT, PD, Mirage, & Icarus get a product TSO'ed? .... Since none of them make BOTH canopy and harness / container.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

My reserve packer going to swear at me

Regardless of your rig, he might swear at you for calling him your 'reserve packer'. He's a 'rigger', and worked hard to earn the certificate and title, and is hopefully doing more for you than just packing your reserve.

[piisfish 140]

Quote

Quote

My reserve packer going to swear at me

Regardless of your rig, he might swear at you for calling him your 'reserve packer'. He's a 'rigger', and worked hard to earn the certificate and title, and is hopefully doing more for you than just packing your reserve.

in some countries, there are packers, reserve packers and riggers, with different levels each

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[peek 21]

Quote

As the topic. Other pros/cons?

There are no "pros" to having a very tight rig other than (maybe, and that is doubtful) looking "cool". None.

(And I'm not talking about the difference between wearing your rig versus a student rig or some nonsense.)

[piisfish 140]

Quote

There are no "pros" to having a very tight rig other than (maybe, and that is doubtful) looking "cool". None.

as Gary said above, worth repeating.
Your reserve must be "the right size", not too small either. If you need a bigger reserve, get a bigger rig. "tight fit" is OK for your jeans or shirts IF and only IF you are not ridiculously overweight. Nothing to do with your rig. Except the closing loops and the BOC pocket, which should not be loose.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[mahonie10 0]

Why not spend a few extra dollars and get a PD optimum? I.E. a 160op is supposed to pack the same size as the PDR143.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

As the topic.

I am getting new gear, but would prefer the reserve to be a bit bigger than the main. From the manufacturer, they say the bigger reserve will fit, but fairly tight fit.

I am questioning:
would it damage the container/flaps over time being very tight, stitching etc.
Any slower opening, or bigger chance of not opening in time.
My reserve packer going to swear at me.
Other pros/cons?

Answers to your questions -

Yes, yes and yes.
Another con: Comfort. An overstuffed reserve is going to feel like a brick on your back. A properly fitting one is going to be a lot more comfortable.

Another: Appearance. Unless the rigger is very skilled and careful, an overstuffed reserve looks like crap. Kinda like a fat guy in tight pants.

Pros: None that I can think of.

You don't mention specifics on size or brand, but some containers can be made with a larger reserve. For example, billvon lists a 109 main and a 143 reserve (and it's not an optimum). So you may be able to get your choices for canopies without compromising fit.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mr2mk1g 10]

Some manufacturers will build you a rig for any canopy configuration. Wings for example do (or at least did) and will let you pair a big reserve with a small main and build the rig to suit. At least, so I recall.

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

Some manufacturers will build you a rig for any canopy configuration. Wings for example do (or at least did) and will let you pair a big reserve with a small main and build the rig to suit. At least, so I recall.

Same with Racer, I believe.

[councilman24 37]

U.S. TSO testing can be done by assembly or component. You can TSO riser only if you so choose. PD does NOT TSO test harnesses just as UPT doesn't TSO test canopies(UPT bad example, still C23b Not to say they haven't done testing). Now, in order to meet the TSO testing for their individual components they have to pick a harness(es) to use or canopy(ies) to use. But, if components are simply scaled size variations only the largest and smallest need be tested. Not the largest canopy in the smallest container it will fit... only the largest container size and the smallest container size and the largest canopy and the smallest canopy. And a container need not be tested with all canopies on the market or the reverse. Now, this is minimal testing and more testing can and is done but it is not required.

So very very few of the real world combinations of container size and canopy model/size are tested. And little guidance is given the rigger in terms of determining compatibility, only the responsibility. That's where experience, not pushing extremes, and common sense (usually uncommon) comes in. Just because you can cram it in doesn't mean it will meet TSO requirements or even work at all.

Early(hmm midway, it took 16 years) on in the discussions by the PIA Parachute Certification Standards Committee (that wrote the base document for the new TSO C23f) the French authority wanted the U.S. TSO to require a comprehensive and exclusive list of what canopy could go in what container. They may still require it in their country. I've lost track of the joint TSO efforts after the C23f approval. This would have eliminated the upper and lower sizes of what could go in a container because of the 'mystery bulk' issue I referenced above. No two individual canopies of a specific model are the same volume. And they vary so much that you may have one H/C - canopy pair that fits and another that doesn't. This isn't theoretical I've seen it.

As mentioned above canopies can be too small. I had a guy with a Tempo 150(maybe 170) in a J5. The safety stow locking the free bag closed had NO tension on it at all. The bungee cord was fully contracted and the lines stows not held at all. I refused to pack it. Two other riggers did and then the guy got his own rigger ticket and continued to pack it. Later he sold it to a newbie who called me on the phone to get his reserve packed. I asked what rig it was and when he told me I had to educate a second generation on why this rig was unsafe.

I'm sure if the OP wants to cram the largest canopy possible in a rig some rigger will pack it. At one of the last symposiums we had a seminar titled roughly 'putting 10 lbs of shit in a 5 lb bag'. Apparently in one area of the country the gear dealers were routinely selling canopies one size LARGER than stated by the H/C manuf. to fit. The riggers had to learn how to deal with it.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[ChrisD 0]

"""I am getting new gear, but would prefer the reserve to be a bit bigger than the main. From the manufacturer, they say the bigger reserve will fit, but fairly tight fit."""

Then why consider a container that is too small???

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

Maybe PM John Sherman?

I know there is a theory (it makes sense) that a tight reserve will take more force to extract and therefore could take longer to deploy.

No need for a PM, I am right here.

To protect yourself from a too tight reserve and an insufficient pilot chute don't buy from any manufacturer who won't tell you what the "Maximinum allowablw Extraction force of the reserve bag from the container is" and what the "Effective Sq. Footage of the reserve pilot chute is.
These two may be matched and tested by a compentant rigger to assure a prompt reserve deployment and keep him from crusing at you.

[JerryBaumchen 1,375]

Hi Terry,

I would like to offer my thoughts to your comments regarding component testing.

Back in the 60's, Dan Poynter was working for Ted Strong. Strong wanted to obtain a TSO-authorization for his StyleMaster harness/container/ripcord system; no canopy.

At that time, it was the position of the FAA that a parachute manufacturer had to build the entire parachute system, including the canopy, any deployment device, etc.

The 'story' at the time was that Strong built a perfect copy of a Navy 26 ft conical for the canopy portion of his rig. He had no intention of ever building that canopy for sale; he only wanted to build the StyleMaster harness/container/ripcord. There were some rumors going around on 'building' this Navy 26 ft conical but I will not go into that. Maybe some evening over a beer or two.

Poynter did not think that this was the way things should be and not in the best interest of the industry or users. He then formed a committee to rewrite the TSO standard which would allow component only testing and certification. That is the committee that I was asked to join and spent the next 20 yrs on.

There is no req'ment that a canopy mfr use certificated harnesses, containers, etc for his testing, and vice versa. His container could be as simple as four straps with a grommet at the each of each of them and some form of 'ripcord.' If someone wanted to certificate a container only they could use a ragged out Sabre 1 canopy, nothing in the TSO standards prevent this.

While I do not have any Wonderhog/Vectors here to take a photo of, I do believe that the TSO marking on the container does made some comment about what canopy is to be used. Anyone out there have rig to take a photo of and post?

Quote

UPT doesn't TSO test canopies(UPT bad example, still C23b

I'm not sure why you say this, can you expand on it?

Quote

And little guidance is given the rigger in terms of determining compatibility, only the responsibility.

IMO this is the crux of it. The rigger is absolutely responsible for what he puts his signature & seal on.

Quote

So very very few of the real world combinations of container size and canopy model/size are tested.

It has been years ago, but I do remember some rumors going around that the FAA wanted each container mfr to do this. This got shot down as to who would be responsible for this testing, the container mfr or the canopy mfr. And it would have been insanely costly to do and keep up as new components would come on the market.

Now back to the original question: No, No and No.

I hope that this helps somewhat,

JerryBaumchen

[ctrph8 0]

Quote

As the topic.

I am getting new gear, but would prefer the reserve to be a bit bigger than the main. From the manufacturer, they say the bigger reserve will fit, but fairly tight fit.

I am questioning:
would it damage the container/flaps over time being very tight, stitching etc.
Any slower opening, or bigger chance of not opening in time.
My reserve packer going to swear at me.
Other pros/cons?

Back to the OP's question: I did pretty much what you are asking about. I ordered a rig that would accommodate a PDR 160... Technically. It was at the upper end of the spectrum. I packed it and had the manufacturer pack it just to see what a really good pack job would look like. It looked like crap. It felt like crap on my back. Later I switched out to an OP 160. The rig feels, looks and packs like an entirely different rig. Do yourself a favor and get a rig that is sized right in the middle of the range for the reserve you are going to use. This also addresses opening speeds. Buy a container that was tested and built for the mid-range of the container volume.

Each manufacturer has LOTS of experience sizing your canopies properly to the rig. Call them. All of the major manufacturers will speak with you. If you go through a big gear dealer, (Chuting Star, etc.) they will also guide you in the right direction because they have probably seen exactly what you are asking about many times.

[ChrisD 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe PM John Sherman?

I know there is a theory (it makes sense) that a tight reserve will take more force to extract and therefore could take longer to deploy.

No need for a PM, I am right here.

To protect yourself from a too tight reserve and an insufficient pilot chute don't buy from any manufacturer who won't tell you what the "Maximinum allowablw Extraction force of the reserve bag from the container is" and what the "Effective Sq. Footage of the reserve pilot chute is.
These two may be matched and tested by a compentant rigger to assure a prompt reserve deployment and keep him from crusing at you.

I love John Sherman,...

and this is good advice for any rig, from any manufacturer.
This is also great advice for testing our stow loops and main pin extraction forces!!! Perhaps more DZO's can put those little fish type scales to test this and make this part of a regular quick inspection? Will people with licenses take the time to do this? We have all seen our brother's and sister's jam something horrendusly oversized into their containeres and just as many are unable to adjust their own closing loops thus generating ridicliously high opening forces!!!
C

Dear Mr Sherman, it's time to post the stuck freebag vid again...

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

As the topic.

I am getting new gear, but would prefer the reserve to be a bit bigger than the main. From the manufacturer, they say the bigger reserve will fit, but fairly tight fit.

So buy a rig from a different manufacturer that's willing to build containers for safe sized reserves and fun sized mains.

Sunrise has several small main + safe reserve combinations and IIRC were the ones who told me they'd build anything I wanted but couldn't guarantee it would look good, Mirage has a couple, Jump Shack will build you anything you want, and Fliteline used to build Reflexes with big differences (ex: R300 150 reserve, 100 main).

If your done down-sizing (or will want to jump cross-braced canopies if you do) you might consider a main container one size bigger which will also increase your reserve container size options (unless the main closing loop is on one of the flaps instead of the main/reserve container wall - the flap arrangement is less tolerant of size variations). Rigs are more comfortable when not packed-up brick hard.

[nigel99 505]

Thanks Terry & Jerry for the explanation.

While it is a legal minefield for a container manufacturer to 'approve' a component for use in their system (e.g. reserve or AAD), it would make sense that there was some form of declaration of compatibility.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[stayhigh 2]

Very tight fit in Florida would be very Bitch to pack in Southern California.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[Deci 0]

There is also the thickness of the rig. Some manufacturers put in smaller width backpads but increase the thickness of the rigs. Makes for extremelly uncomfortable rigs when packed tightly (brick on your back) and also less room in the plane... Wierd, eh? "Smaller" rig = less room on the plane...

Pick a size of rig that fits the canopies you want either in a "soft" or "normal" fit. "Tight" is "possible, but then you're sacrificing both comfort, and more importantly - safety.

CSPA D-1046 TI Coach2 RiggerA JM SSI SSE GCI EJR Canadian 102-way record holder
bard.ca