chuckakers 425 #26 August 21, 2010 Quotepage 5 of the current manual, found here : http://www.vigil.aero/files/images/ENGELS___DP_JUN_2010.pdf "The Vigil® is designed for a life expectancy of 20 years from the date of manufacture. The above expectancy is based on the fact that the cutter, the Pulses Plus element and the electronic components have been designed for a functional lifetime of 20 years." page 33 of the same manual : "• Life time: 20 years life expectancy" Of course this can also read as the unit is not guaranteed to last past the 20 years, but it *may* :) Actually I just read the words on the page. The key word is "expectancy". That - by definition - does not mandate a life limit.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
docjohn 0 #27 August 21, 2010 QuoteAirtec lost my loyalty when they instituted a mandatory life limit on the Cypres. Ditto. I used to own 2 Cypress's. I now own 2 Vigils because I had to throw away 2 perfectly good Cypress's. Doc http://www.manifestmaster.com/video Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
docjohn 0 #28 August 21, 2010 QuoteYou do realize that electronics get old and their functionality cannot be guaranteed over a certain period of time. I agree. But what is a CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME? Maybe the expiration should be 5 years... or 2 years. or 10, or 20. How do you decide? Now if all of the Cypress's or Vigils start displaying error codes after a certain amount of time, then that could be a basis for setting the lifetime. Lot's of good Cypress's are being retired without a single hiccup after 12 years. I buy Vigils now. Doc http://www.manifestmaster.com/video Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #29 August 21, 2010 QuoteAirtec lost my loyalty when they instituted a mandatory life limit on the Cypres. I also was quite cynical at first about this, but I didn't even have an AAD at that time. I now appreciate the wisdom of this policy, and do not believe it is a profit-driven decision. We all know that the accuracy of an AAD is very important. If it is off on the low side, then it is more likely to not be effective if needed. If it is off on the high side, then we risk it firing on a relatively low pull. I think one of the reasons that pull altitude is significantly higher than 20 years ago is the desire to avoid an activation from a 2k pull. Pulling at 2k used to be quite normal. I'm not advocating pulling at 2k, but if I do, I really want (need) an AAD to be very accurate. That accuracy cannot be checked by a power-on self test. For those that want as simple an AAD as possible, get an FXC MK12000, or an Astra. Those units are so simple that they are stupid. I think some modern designs are only slightly more intelligent (able to distinguish realistic conditions from transient events).People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #30 August 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou do realize that electronics get old and their functionality cannot be guaranteed over a certain period of time. I agree. But what is a CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME? Maybe the expiration should be 5 years... or 2 years. or 10, or 20. How do you decide? Now if all of the Cypress's or Vigils start displaying error codes after a certain amount of time, then that could be a basis for setting the lifetime. Lot's of good Cypress's are being retired without a single hiccup after 12 years. I buy Vigils now. Why do think the limit was decided arbitrarily? They didn't just pull that limit out of thin air, they did engineering analysis. Years ago I read on their website a layman's explanation of the basis for that decision. If there were lots of units that were failing self test near the 12 year limit, that would mean that the life limit should be adjusted to be_much_shorter. As I've said before, a power-on self test is not able to confirm the accuracy of the unit. We must recognize that fact when discussing this issue.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trigger 0 #31 August 21, 2010 Jumping a cyprus II equiped rig, soon as the time is up on the cyprus i'm switching to Vigil. No brand loyalty with me..CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #32 August 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteAirtec lost my loyalty when they instituted a mandatory life limit on the Cypres. I also was quite cynical at first about this, but I didn't even have an AAD at that time. I now appreciate the wisdom of this policy, and do not believe it is a profit-driven decision. We all know that the accuracy of an AAD is very important. If it is off on the low side, then it is more likely to not be effective if needed. If it is off on the high side, then we risk it firing on a relatively low pull. I think one of the reasons that pull altitude is significantly higher than 20 years ago is the desire to avoid an activation from a 2k pull. Pulling at 2k used to be quite normal. I'm not advocating pulling at 2k, but if I do, I really want (need) an AAD to be very accurate. That accuracy cannot be checked by a power-on self test. A. How do you know the accuracy of the unit can't be determined during the self-test? B. You statements seem to imply that if a manufacturer chooses NOT to life limit their product based on an arbitrary number, they are risking people's lives because the unit could misfire. Using that logic, why not a 9 year life limit? Or maybe 6? If a 12 year old unit can kill me because it's not accurate, couldn't a 6 or 9 - or whatever - unit do it too?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #33 August 22, 2010 QuoteA. How do you know the accuracy of the unit can't be determined during the self-test? A self test can confirm electrical continuity, and make sure that systems are in a normal state, and that no software errors are present. A self test cannot subject the pressure transducer to a pressure change to confirm that it is accurately sensing the pressure (a change in resistance/capacitance/whatever to the flexing of a membrane/etc. - it depends on what technology is used). It can't calibrate itself. QuoteB. You statements seem to imply that if a manufacturer chooses NOT to life limit their product based on an arbitrary number, they are risking people's lives because the unit could misfire. It isn't an arbitrary number. The limit was determined by an analysis based upon the design, testing, and actual experience with such systems and components. Testing and calibration of life-critical systems such as this is not unusual. The check intervals and life limitations are expensive and inconvenient, but reasonable from an engineering and safety viewpoint. Experience shows that such requirements are justified.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #34 August 22, 2010 cypres's are are used in aerospace; nuff said! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #35 August 23, 2010 Quote Just remember, if you use any thing but a CYPRES, you WILL die! The statistics clearly show that 100% of all non-CYPRES owning individuals will die! does that mean I am 200% immortal ? scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ibx 2 #36 August 23, 2010 QuoteA. How do you know the accuracy of the unit can't be determined during the self-test? It's basically a restriction of a CPU. To verify 100% that a CPU is functioning correctly you have to run every possible state that the CPU can be in, then mathematically verify the state being correct. This is impossible to do with a limited amount of time and resources. Airtec uses motorola CPU's, Motorola gives a lifetime on these Chips a less than the life expectancy of a Cypres. I think its around 8 years, I can't remember exactly though. Airtec however runs these CPU's with very little voltage decreasing the thermal wear and can so in good conscience, give a lifetime of 12 years. How did they get their good conscience ? The tested the shit out of the Cypres every four years. Out of every single one. Not just few Test Cypres - Every single Cypres out there. This lifetime Guarantee is still a compromise between optimal reliability and customer satisfaction. Quote B. You statements seem to imply that if a manufacturer chooses NOT to life limit their product based on an arbitrary number, they are risking people's lives because the unit could misfire. Using that logic, why not a 9 year life limit? Or maybe 6? If a 12 year old unit can kill me because it's not accurate, couldn't a 6 or 9 - or whatever - unit do it too? 12 Years is not an arbitrary number. It's a combination of experience and the lifetime guarantee of the chips manufacturer. Now you may ask if a Cypres has a lifetime of 12 years, how do could Airtec know if the units are reliable. This is where the 4 year maintenance comes in. How do competitors know if their units are still operating as they should after 4 years. A selftest is good, but as explained before, not 100% accurate. As explained before: Airtec is basically trying to find the best compromise between customer satisfaction and the best possible reliability. Any manufacturer giving an unlimited life expectancy on a life saving product without regular inspection is at least a little negligent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #37 August 23, 2010 Quote Quote Airtec is basically trying to find the best compromise between customer satisfaction and the best possible reliability. Didn't work for me. Their competition got my money.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #38 August 23, 2010 QuoteDidn't work for me. Their competition got my money. You have to admit that in comparison to AADs that came before it, the Cypres out performs them by leaps and bounds. As such, it's not unreasonable to expect higher maintenence costs or a shorter life expectency. I jump with an old timer who likes to tell the story of breaking lines on a Strato-Could or something during the muddle of a jump day, and he just threw an overhand knot in the line and kept jumping. Now I jump a smaller Velocity, and if I break a line, it needs to be replaced no questions asked. It would be nice to be able to keep jumping until the end of the day, but I trade off the higher performance for the more strict maintenence requirements. In terms of the life limits, until the other AADs have been in the field for a period of more than 12 years, the jury is still out on that one. Without a significant number of units operating problems free for 15+ years in the field, we cannot say for sure if the 12 year life limit on the Cypres is a jack or not. When you take the fixed cost of ownership of the Cypres and break it down over 12 years, the yearly cost seems reasonable in my eyes. At this point the annual cost is less than the cost of a full day of jummping. The Cypres2 without the bi-annual battery change is a big step forward, it takes the upkeep down to two trips to SSK over the entire life, again, that seems very reasonable given the nature of the device. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
koppel 4 #39 August 23, 2010 agreed, Argus (Aviacom) will continue to be my AAD of choice. All the benefits, Servicing every four years, affordable batteries, low cost maintenance... seems to me that it offers the same things that Cypres does.... just at better value. I figure when something is new on the market that sure there is an R&D cost to pay but if the new boys can come along and do it cheaper you can bet that Airtec could too but they have been used to having the playing field to themselves. I think over the next few years the whole question of which brand will be more like Nike or Addias... its the pretty colours and the fancy adverts that will sell rather than the features etcI like my canopy... ...it lets me down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #40 August 23, 2010 >I figure when something is new on the market that sure there is an >R&D cost to pay but if the new boys can come along and do it cheaper . . . Well, sure. You can always skip the R+D and do something cheaper. The question is - is that a good idea? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bodhisattva420 0 #41 August 23, 2010 The cypress has no personality at all; it just spits out a bunch of numbers at you like the rain man. Now the vigil, that's an AAD. I mean c'mon, it winks at you when you turn it on . . . Can your cypress do that? Didn't think so! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hvance 0 #42 August 23, 2010 Quote>I figure when something is new on the market that sure there is an >R&D cost to pay but if the new boys can come along and do it cheaper . . . Well, sure. You can always skip the R+D and do something cheaper. The question is - is that a good idea? I don't know if this is the case with AADs, but new companies can often do well precisely because they don't have to pay nearly as much for R&D. It's not that they haven't designed their products; it's that the older companies paid for it. Riding the wake so to speak.I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #43 August 23, 2010 > It's not that they haven't designed their products; it's that the older >companies paid for it. That's true when the product is a can opener or mousetrap; something that can be copied by observing how all the parts work. It is much, much harder when the R+D is contained not within the parts that make up the unit, but within the (protected) computer code inside the controller. You can't copy that, at least not without very heroic measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #44 August 24, 2010 Quote> It is much, much harder when the R+D is contained not within the parts that make up the unit, but within the (protected) computer code inside the controller. Protected code? BWWWAAAHHHHH!!!!Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettski74 0 #45 August 24, 2010 QuoteYou can't copy that, at least not without very heroic measures. The measures aren't that heroic. We have a rag-tag bunch of hackers across the world that manage to hack firmware on most popular devices within a short time of their release and they don't have a budget to do so. If someone were paid to do that full-time, the time required would be much shorter. Of course this raises moral and legal questions, but I still don't see where the heroism is required. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skybear 0 #46 August 24, 2010 Quote...but if the new boys can come along and do it cheaper you can bet that Airtec could too... I don't know how it is in Australia, but here in Germany Cypres 2, Vigil 2 and Argus are about the same price. The Cypres 2 maintenance is done at a fixed price of 200 Euros (including the rigging stuff) but nobody knows how much the Argus maintenance will be. And Cypres 2 comes with a full 12,5-year warranty which would justify a higher price than the competitors, which only have a 1-year warranty. Therefore Cypres 2 is my choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ibx 2 #47 August 24, 2010 QuoteAll the benefits, Servicing every four years, affordable batteries, low cost maintenance... seems to me that it offers the same things that Cypres does.... just at better value. Yeah the cutter can lock the reserve loop instead of cutting it. It happened in Poland a short while ago because of a mis designed cutter. QuoteThe measures aren't that heroic. We have a rag-tag bunch of hackers across the world that manage to hack firmware on most popular devices within a short time of their release and they don't have a budget to do so. If someone were paid to do that full-time, the time required would be much shorter. Of course this raises moral and legal questions, but I still don't see where the heroism is required. I don't think its a question of directly copying the code. It's more that the general concept was copied. Using a cutter to activate the reserve for example, this is originally Airtecs idea. I don't think that the code necessary to calculate air pressure and compensate for lee effects is that complicated. I just don't like it if a concept is copied, but not copied well. See the Argus cutter for example. Same goes for the multiple revisions of the Vigil. More R+D would have put out a better product from the beginning. Factory inspection would find potential flaws not found in the R+D process. Airtec knew, that they can't possibly find every flaw in the R+D process simply because of usage and aging issues which cannot be predicted or tested in during R+D. Thats why they also first had a non field replaceable cutter, so they got their hands on every unit that fired, they needed to gain experience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuck.reilly 0 #48 August 24, 2010 I had a Cypres 1 that reached EOL, replaced it with a Vigil that proceeded to ground fired after it's third jump and being on the ground for 20 minutes, I returned the Vigil got my money back and bought a Cypres 2, I also have a Cypres 1 in my back up rig. Nothing against any other product but as a safety device you get one shot and if it misfires due to a sensor error indicating that the temperature is 2000 degrees, then you've lost my business.----------------------------------- "There are two kinds of skydivers in this world, the kind that skydive to enrich their lives and the kind that skydive to define their lives. Don't be the latter." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #49 August 24, 2010 >The measures aren't that heroic. We have a rag-tag bunch of hackers >across the world that manage to hack firmware on most popular devices >within a short time of their release and they don't have a budget to do so. Right. It's certainly doable, it's just difficult - and the resulting object code can be used to directly copy the code from a syste, but not to tweak it. To do that you'd have to reconstruct the source code from the object code, adjust the code to accommodate the new gains/temp compensations of the altitude sensor and recompile it. All completely doable, but not easy by a long shot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
koppel 4 #50 August 25, 2010 my comment refers to the fact that after this many years and their claims of so many units sold that the R&D should have been paid by now and they should be able to offer their product at a more competitive rate. and from the R&D that I have seen released from the newer brands I have no issues with jumping my ArgusI like my canopy... ...it lets me down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
