Sportbike rider/canopy pilot parallels

[Albatross 0]

I think that Both Bills and some others have it nailed. In almost no instance are we suggesting that a newbie can't land a Katana or crossfire at 1.4 with 100 jumps or that someone like me with 0 bike riding experience couldn't drive Bill's bike under calm predictable conditions. The problem is that in either case they are not using them the way they were designed and both have the capability to get the user in TONS of trouble if they make a bad choice. Like the canopy it is not the wide open landing area properly set up into the wind that is the problem it is when you get cut off or kit bad air or raod and need to sue the bike or canopy to get out that you are likely to make bad choises and get hurt.
I am not saying that either bikes or canopies are safe in any size ALL of the can kill you if you make a bad choise but having one that is not going to make a move that is faster or more powerful than the operator's reactions and experience will amke it much safer. This is why I am looking at geting a Sexy Ninja 250 or Prowler when I start riding and not trying my GIRLFRIENDS Harley. I may be bigger and stronger but she has been riding for YEARS and know how to handle the bikes.
Does that make me a wimp?? or not as cool? Or stupid?? Doubt it

Chris

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What I would like to see is: If you want to progress to (elliptical/x-brace/swooping/higher wingload) here are the tools you need.

I agree. A thought out, smart progression is the way to go.

Quote

This isn't an argument that people with 100 jumps can somehow be safe on a Katana at 1.7

That is the whole point of the original article as it relates the motorcycles.

Quote

For someone who used to jump like a 60-something sq ft canopy at a 5000+ft MSL DZ you sure like to whine about other people's choices.

a) That wasn't my first canopy. I didn't progress as I should have, but I didn't know it until later. I had no way of knowing because I didn't have the experience.

b) Having flown a small canopy doesn't mean that I think others shouldn't, just that if that is their goal, they should be smart/safe about it.

Derek

[billvon 3,000]

>If you want to progress to (elliptical/x-brace/swooping/higher
> wingload) here are the tools you need. What I detest is: Come back
> after you have bored 200-more holes in the sky because some
> chart on the internet says so.

Often both are true. Often jumpers need both training and experience to safely jump higher wing loadings. But many newer jumpers can't hear that; they figure they are the exception, and all the scary stories they hear are just scare stories to keep them from glory. They figure that the advice from upjumpers comes from reading some meaningless chart on the Internet.

Older jumpers have seen the deaths that become the scary stories, and have learned that lesson. Not because they are any better or smarter, just because they have been around for long enough to see the deaths. Personally, one of my goals with newer jumpers on higher wingloadings is to keep them alive until they _do_ have an experience that slams home the reality of what can happen. For some, that's seeing someone else die or be injured; for some it's a broken femur.

>We need to collectively stop whining about wingload and focus more
> on how to not get in the corner to begin with, literally and
> figuratively. It's not the canopy that kills, it's the pilot.

Right, but a larger canopy will keep a less competent pilot alive. Wingloading is a big deal, no matter how many new jumpers think it isn't. That was _precisely_ the point of the original article.

>This isn't an argument that people with 100 jumps can somehow be
> safe on a Katana at 1.7 but rather the more common person at 300
> jumps that's thinking about a Crossfire or a Samurai at 1.4 that is
> current, has a couple of canopy courses under their belt, but
> somehow always ends up being the "bad guy" in the Safety and
> Training forum.

If they were just the bad guys in S+T it wouldn't be so bad. All too often, they end up as the bad guys in Incidents - and all too often they are no longer here to explain that they could handle the canopy just fine despite what the nagging upjumpers have been telling them.

>Really man, if you want to preach, show up to church and people will
> listen.

No, really, they don't. Someday you will have the experience of talking to someone until you are blue in the face, and then watching them cripple or kill themselves. That's the point at which you think that maybe the "talk to them and they will listen" thing doesn't often work.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Probably the thing I hate the most about motorcycling and skydiving is the hypocrisy of them both. There is so much, "Do as I say and not as I do (did)." going on it's humorous.

You mean like the folks on here that claim "I did it, but don't you try it?"

Hooknswoop "I didn't write the article. It's not a perfect parallel, but addresses some of the same issues new canopy pilots face. (My first bike was a 600 too) "

outlawphx " went out and bought a brand new '95 YZF-600 after getting my motorcycle license, and I managed to put 10k miles on it with no lay downs. 600cc bikes now days have about 15 more horsepower and weigh 50 pounds less. I think that makes them a little sketchier as first bikes."

goose491 "Having said that, I bought my first motorcycle this year. It is a Suzuki Katana 600" of course he goes on to explain WHY it was ok for HIM "This is actually spoken of as a good starter-bike. It is classified as sport-touring. It is heavy, low to the ground and has a longer wheel base which makes the above-example a little harder to find yourself in."

When are people going to realize that they are NOT "gods"?

There is a reason why people recomend to people who don't know anything to take it slow on a slow bike/canopy....In fact I would rather see someone fly/ride the shit out of a slower bike/canopy than take it slow on a high power ride.

One you are pushing it, but the level is low, the other you are trying to take a HP bike/canopy and ride it like its a Yugo....It will bite you.

Quote

When 80% of the "up jumpers" (I'm referring to the local swoop-gods not the skilled professionals) give advice in my experience they are really just saying, "You'll never progress as fast as me so don't bother trying."

Maybe thats just what you hear when they talk? Do you think I don't want people to learn, or do you think I want people to learn in a safe way?

Quote

It's not the canopy that kills, it's the pilot.

Yes and when the pilot is in way over their head they tend to die more than people who listen and take advice.

Quote

Really man, if you want to preach, show up to church and people will listen. For someone who used to jump like a 60-something sq ft canopy at a 5000+ft MSL DZ you sure like to whine about other people's choices

Since he didn't die...You would be wise to listen to him. He was not a "I know what I am doing" kind of guy. He took MEASURED steps.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[hookncrater 0]

I wasn't saying people shouldn't start slow, I was saying people can safely progress briskly when given the proper tools and preparation. Those that choose not to use those tools... well, if you're going to be stupid, you'd better be tough.

Charts and a formulaic approach just don't cut it IMO there are just too many variables.

________________________________________________________________________________
when in doubt... hook it!

[Ron 10]

Quote

I wasn't saying people shouldn't start slow, I was saying people can safely progress briskly when given the proper tools and preparation. Those that choose not to use those tools... well, if you're going to be stupid, you'd better be tough.

Charts and a formulaic approach just don't cut it IMO there are just too many variables.

And all we have been saying is part of the proper tools are canopies/bikes that allow you to fuck up and not kill you for it.

Accidents happen...almost ALL are due to not being prepared. So stack the odds in your favor, and not fly/ride somehting that when you make a mistake it does not hurt you.

The same mistake on a .08 laoded Specter will do less damage than a 2.0 loaded Velocity.

But this is the problem right here: "well, if you're going to be stupid, you'd better be tough."

I'd rather people not have to die for having an ego.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I wasn't saying people shouldn't start slow

Then we agree, because that is the entire point of the article. Slow is relative. If someone started too fast because they didn't know any better, is it hyprocrisy to tell others of their mistake? Or shoud they look the other way when a new jumper gets too small of a canopy for their first canopy, just like they did? Should a seasoned, experienced rider not tell a new rider of their bad experience with an over-powered first bike?

Just because I got away with some stupid choices doesn't make them good choices. It doesn't make me a hypocrite for telling others they shouldn't repeat my mistakes.

My first bike was a Katana 600. My first canopy was a Monarch 135. Neither was a good choice, but I didn't know any better.

Derek

[Deuce 1]

I went from a centrifugal clutch mini bike to a Yamaha XR 175 to a Katana GSX1100F. Had that one from 1989 till 2000 and now have a BMW K1200RS.

As I was riding the Katana home in 1989 I broke out in a cold sweat and would have taken it right back if I would have been able to. I was a lot like those guys SkymonkeyOne describes, but the cop type instead of the Soldier type.

I survived, but it was luck rather than anything else.

Start small as your ego will let you. If you can't counter-steer turn, you have no business on any kind of sport bike.

And yeah, I think it equates to canopy piloting. When you enter a turn on a bike fast, you pick that point in the turn where you are going to countersteer the bike down and then hold the line, once you see the out point, you pour on the throttle until you are upright again.

To me that's similar to finding your flare point, deciding when to set your feet down, and finishing out with the toggles.

[hookncrater 0]

I don't disagree, however I think the sticking point of the discussion is really not to start small, but rather how small to start. (Or in the case of canopies, how big.)

While some think you need to spend a couple of seasons on a Ninja 250 or Rebel, others (like me) think that an SV650 or an older CBR600 are okay.

Both sides can show data that either method works, so it boils down to acceptable levels of risk and where your personal threshold is. Maybe mine's just higher for whatever reason or maybe I just think people should have the right to choose.

Keep the rubber side down...

________________________________________________________________________________
when in doubt... hook it!

[bmcd308 0]

Another parallel is the sudden change in rides despite having lots of total (but no relevant) experience.

I rode minibikes and motocrossers every single day of my childhood until I got a car, then I rode less, but still often. By almost any standard, I was a good dirt bike rider. If you asked me, I was a great motorcycle rider.

One of my old buds who had moved out of town and started riding street bikes moved back to town with his mom when I was about 17 or 18. He had a Honda Hurricane 1000.

I took it for one ride. I had done lots of things on a motorcycle prior to that, and I was comfortable at both speed and altitude with a CR125 under me. I cannot think of a time when I was as scared as I was on that Hurricane, and all I did was take it around a parking lot then out down a straight street.

I did not tear up his bike or myself, but that bike wanted to do both like nothing I had experienced before.

It was an entirely different animal, and I was completely unprepared to ride it.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[goose491 0]

Ron I don't think you know the first thing of which you speak.

The article presented was about sportbikes and the parallel drawn is between them and canopies.

You use outlawphx's post to speak of him as the type that doesn't listen when he is agreeing. His post makes the point that sport bikes today are lighter AND more powerful. His point is valid.

You use my post to speak of me as the type that doesn't listen but fail to notice that mine is a 93 sport-touring... very different then todays sport bikes.... the subject of the article. I didn't go on to explain why it was good for ME... rather why it is considered a good starter by the motorcycle community. Also in my post, I say I would not have bought a sport bike of equal displacement nor would I recommend a sport bike of that size as a starter.

The displacement of a motorcycle means absolutely NOTHING if you don't know the class of the bike. That is why the article makes reference to todays sport bikes.

You do know there is a difference right? The article in question speaks of sport bikes in particular for a reason... it doens't speak out at 600 and up for other classes because the performance of said bikes hasn't changed the way it has in sport bikes during the last decade.

You just love to stir the shit don't you?

When you read, finish the whole post, reflect, then post.


I now return you to your regularly programmed misunderstanding of peoples posts.

Nick

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I don't disagree, however I think the sticking point of the discussion is really not to start small, but rather how small to start. (Or in the case of canopies, how big.)

What is the big deal? As long as the start level limit is close, what does it matter if it is a little high or a ittle low? What would it hurt if the limit for a first canopy was set a little too low of a wing loading? What would it hurt if the recommended cc's for a first bike was set a little too small?

Quote

I just think people should have the right to choose.

Choice is great, but if it is your first bike/canopy, what are basing your choice on? You have next to no experience to base the decision on.

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ron I don't think you know the first thing of which you speak.

I don't think you do.

Quote

You use my post to speak of me as the type that doesn't listen but fail to notice that mine is a 93 sport-touring... very different then todays sport bikes.... the subject of the article

You are using the old "A Stiletto is not a HP canopy argument".

Which is BS. The laws of physics have not changed to make a 600 cc bike or a Stiletto LESS high performance....The subject of the post was people who pick things based on ego...Bike or Canopy.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You just love to stir the shit don't you?

When you read, finish the whole post, reflect, then post.

Whereas I thought it was a bit odd for a first year rider with one bike to say as much as you did.

You're convinced there is a danger on the bike, but I don't think you understand it very well yet.

And for the record, those who can control their right wrist have a lot more to fear from the traffic on the road then they do from their bike. That is why bikes and canopies aren't the same.

[hookncrater 0]

Quote

What is the big deal?

It's really just a philosophical difference, I don't think it's a big deal to go slightly bigger, but others do apparently since they are so quick to jump on other people's choices and label them wrong or stupid.

Ever notice on the road how everyone who drives faster than you is crazy and everyone that drives slower is an idiot.

It's all about perception.

________________________________________________________________________________
when in doubt... hook it!

[outlawphx 1]

Quote

You are using the old "A Stiletto is not a HP canopy argument".

Which is BS. The laws of physics have not changed to make a 600 cc bike or a Stiletto LESS high performance....The subject of the post was people who pick things based on ego...Bike or Canopy.

He has a valid point...

'95 YZF 600 - 90hp/450lbs
'05 CBR 600RR - 108hp/370lbs

so w/ a 180lbs rider

'95 YZF 600 - 450lbs + 180lbs = 630lbs / 90hp = 7lbs/hp
'05 CBR 600RR - 370lbs + 180lbs = 550lbs / 108hp = 5.1lbs/hp

That's a 37% increase in performance.

'95 Stilleto 150 w/ 180lbs exit weight - 180/150 = 1.2lbs/sqft

'05 Stilleto 150 w/ 180lbs exit weight - 180/150 = 1.2lbs/sqft

or maybe

1.2lbs/sqft * 37% increase in performance = 1.644lbs/sqft * 180lbs = 109 sqft Stilleto

So you saying all 600cc bikes are the same is like saying the performance of a 150 Stilleto is the same as a 107 Stilleto.

I'm saying with the increase in performance in bikes, you need to re-examine the idea you can make judgements simply based on displacement.

[outlawphx 1]

Quote

Ever notice on the road how everyone who drives faster than you is crazy and everyone that drives slower is an idiot.

It's all about perception.

Definitely.

[Ron 10]

Quote

He has a valid point...

'95 YZF 600 - 90hp/450lbs
'05 CBR 600RR - 108hp/370lbs

So you don't consider 7lbs per hp to be High Performance?

03 Ninja 250 - 33hp/305 pounds.
15 pounds per HP.

So which is safer?

Quote

I'm saying with the increase in performance in bikes, you need to re-examine the idea you can make judgements simply based on displacement.

And what I am saying that Stiletto is not as HP as the Velocity, a 600cc motorcycle with a 7 pound per hp ratio is STILL high performance even if there are more hp bikes out there.

The fact that a 7 pound per hp bike is not *as* high performance does not mean it is NOT HP.

And thats the point. You need to look at the performance of the bike/canopy, not in relation to anything else....Just because a new bike might be more powerful, that does not mean that the other bike is still not highperformance.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[sundevil777 102]

I think that motorcyclists that have learned on the dirt have a big advantage.

I think it is a good thing to be able to try jumps, powersliding, brakesliding, wheelies, bouncing over obstacles, and lots of other such manuvers on the dirt. Then you might be more likely to be able to handle it when it happens on the street.

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

[LukeOliver 0]

Here's another parallel that caught my eye, married to a more general quote regarding our sport:

From the Queensland Police Force, on driving skills:

Learner drivers have three general areas of skills to acquire before they become safe drivers.

1. Manipulative skills: steering, control of speed, changing gears, braking, choosing the correct lane, etc

— these skills are relatively easy to acquire within a few months of practice.


2. Perceptual skills: recognition of potential hazards, where to look, what to look for, attention switching, etc

— these skills require a longer period of practice —in the order of a year or two — before reaching a plateau level.


3. Decision -making skills: judgement of safe manoeuvres, attitude to driving, expectations of driver’s own ability and those of others

— these skills are the most difficult to acquire and take approximately seven years

— about the age of 25 these skills begin to plateau.


The Average Skydiver

“The average skydiver [in the U.S.A]. makes about 200 jumps per year and will leave the sport before his or her 5th year” - Wikipedia

[LukeOliver 0]

There's some other stuff I wrote here
http://www.lukeoliver.com/thesis/#_Toc77152632

It's a bit long-winded to cut and paste here, but in passing it deals with the issues we have in regulating canopy progression - namely, the failure of the 250cc restriction and the eventual adoption of a graduated licensing scheme.

The full source of the Queensland Parliamentary report is online somewhere as well.

L.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

adoption of a graduated licensing scheme.

Well that analgous to dropzones; maybe the USPA; having wingload restrictions dependant on jump numbers. Definitely not a bad idea in my opinion, as we have been enforcing one to the best of our ability since at least 2001 at Raeford.

On the motorcycle riding side, some states have been doing this for over thirty years. When I was growing up in Alabama I was licensed to ride a motorcycle legally on the street at age 14. 14 year-olds were able to be licensed, but restricted to 100 cc's. 15 year-olds were restriced to 400 cc's, and 16 year-olds could ride whatever they chose. This was absolutely not a big deal to any of us, as we had been riding our dirtbikes since we could walk anyways. Again though, there was a system in place to let us gradually adjust to larger bikes; not just hit the street on the biggest thing we could throw a leg over.

Chuck

[goose491 0]

Quote

Whereas I thought it was a bit odd for a first year rider with one bike to say as much as you did.

I did say a lot. Care to point out which part was not valid?

The article in question doesn't talk about cruiser bikes 600 and up does it? I'm trying to tell Ron that Sport Bikes are an entirely different animal then Touring... or say cruiser... and you chime in and tell me what? That I don't have enough experience to say that?

Well I did enough homework to know what I was buying when I bought it. I'm not interested in dying for my ego. This article says 600 and up is just too much bike for a first sportbike. I agree! Mine is not classified as a sportbike though. It is significantly heavier, it has a longer wheelbase, it is lower to the ground, the seat positon is more upright, the pegs are further forward, the motor is significantly de-tuned when compared to a GXS600R for example. Ask any seasoned sport bike owner who has ridden one what they think?: "It's a Pig!" Insurance rates for this bike is $1200 less -minimum- then any sport bike. Including ones of lesser displacement. Do I not have enough experience to know all this?... to understand what it means? I don't know, maybe you think so.

Suzuki does not recommend their GXSR series as first bikes. Even though the retard the timming on the 600s and 750s to help avoid unnintentional wheelies, this is a common occurance. They do recommend the Katana though. (GXS-F).

Quote

You're convinced there is a danger on the bike, but I don't think you understand it very well yet.

Humber College Safety course taught me a lot, the forums I am a member of do also and I'm learning more everyday. But I didn't buy a stilletto to learn on, I bought a fucking Spectre.

Quote

And for the record, those who can control their right wrist have a lot more to fear from the traffic on the road then they do from their bike. That is why bikes and canopies aren't the same.

Also for the record, did you see me stating otherwise?

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[skycat 0]

Quote

Insurance rates for this bike is $1200 less -minimum- then any sport bike.

Ummm....where is your insurance through? Full coverage is under $200 per year for our CBR600RR.

Fly it like you stole it!

[goose491 0]

Quote

Quote

Insurance rates for this bike is $1200 less -minimum- then any sport bike.

Ummm....where is your insurance through? Full coverage is under $200 per year for our CBR600RR.

I'm in Ontario, Canada. Insurance is a different animal here because it pays for your personal injury as well as liability to others.

... unless that's the case in colorado too?

Rates for auto/motorcycle insurance in Ontario are the highest of all the provinces

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!