Low volume reserves - any fresh feedback

[ouch 0]

I have looked at several older discussion threads about low pack volume reserves, and I'm wondering if there have been any new developments in the past year or so.

Any trends spotted by packers or riggers? Any issues of concern?

From what I can gather so far, if I want to upsize my PD143 reserve without upsizing my container, I'd be looking at an Optimum 160, A Nano 160 or a Speed 150.

Is one proving to be better than the other, or does it come down to brand loyalty and cost?

[skydiverek 63]

Speed 150 is different from Speed 2000 150. Just a note. You would want Speed 2000 150.

[Pobrause 6]

skydiverek

Speed 150 is different from Speed 2000 150. Just a note. You would want Speed 2000 150.

all Speeds manufactured during the last 15 years have been Speed 2000 with the low bulk material.
Nevertheless sometimes Paratec is short of the Speed 2000 material and uses normal f111 instead on some parts (ribs mostly) My rigger (30+ years experience as a Rigger) pointed this out to me.
So sometimes they do pack a bit bigger than advertised.
To make sure its all 2000er material contact Paratec with the serial number and ask them.

also the MSW for a Speed reserve is way lower than for a comparable Optimum oder PD-R
Speed 135: 80 kg (176 lbs)
Optimum 126: 115 kg (254 lbs)


Don't know anything about the Nano, though.

-------------------------------------------------------

To absent friends

[TEXTILEGUY 0]

In terms of low pack volume fabrics - there have been some developments in the structural design of fabrics - but this has been recent - within the past 5 years.

The standard F111 type cloths can be made to a lower thickness in processing, and this seems to be gaining ground.

Having said that, the Optimum and the ZPX are made from unique raw materials, where only one fabric manufacturer has the rights to the raw materials. I am also doing some research work being to quantify or qualify low bulk fabrics - possibly to attempt to create a definition of such.

I believe that a new reserve is due to be launched soon with one of our newer low bulk fabric designs - but I will leave that to the canopy manufacturer to announce when he is ready.

[voilsb 1]

ouch

From what I can gather so far, if I want to upsize my PD143 reserve without upsizing my container, I'd be looking at an Optimum 160, A Nano 160 or a Speed 150.

Is one proving to be better than the other, or does it come down to brand loyalty and cost?

From another thread I posted in today:

I've packed and jumped an Optimum/160, Nano/160, and Speed 2000/190, all in a reserve tray built for a PD 143.

All packed easier than the PD 143 did, in the same container, both with and without an AAD. All 4 packed within 2lb of the same pull force.

Nano had the best flare, straight in and with front risers, but had very fast reserve-like openings.

Optimum had an excellent flare with a front riser approach, and a regular flare straight in. Also had the softest openings.

Speed had the steepest glide slope, but consequently had an excellent flare straight in. Brakes were set too short, so I experienced bucking on front risers.

Nano and Optimum had similar altitude loss in turns. Speed lost the most altitude in turns.

Brian

[skydiverek 63]

And what were the openings on Speed 2000 ?

[ouch 0]

Thanks for your input everyone, especially voilsb.

This is exactly the feedback that I needed.