payback462 0 #2 May 10, 2003 Quote Don't let an engineered fashion statement fool you. but it already has unfortunately, just look at the popularity of the mini 3-ring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZag 0 #3 May 10, 2003 Assigning blame "only" to type 17 webbing used for mini risers is probably one of the greatest misconceptions in the industry. Many riggers may recall the RW 7 type harness rings, which now have been replaced by RW 8's, harness rings made by Parachute de France, and last but not least, harness rings developed by Paraflite that exhibit a larger diameter of the ring portion above the slot. The very "thinness" of the RW 7 harness rings in conjunction with non-reinforced type 17 risers, created a guillotine like effect on the webbing under load. One only tends to become a believer in such failures when you witness them, and I had the opportunity to see first hand the failure of type 17 "non-reinforced risers at the grommet section and well below that point due to RW 7's. I have also witnessed re-inforced riser failures due to the lack of bartacks at the grommet insertion point on rigs with RW 8's. Furthermore it is a misconception that regular type 8 risers are immune to failure. The conventional No. 3 style ring on tandem risers was recalled due to potato chipping, or the distortion under load, but I have seen this effect on regular rigs as well. In recent history some of these problems are not an issue anymore. However I do take a close look at all the various assemblies and constructions as they pass by me. Mini 3-ring risers have become reliable, in their current state of manufacture. The RWS can be thanked for revising their specs and making a more reliable product. This goes back to 1998! As I am very active in rigging and see many systems pass through my shop, I am somewhat relieved not having found further problems due to bad riser manufacture.. This may be the result of an industry that is becoming more mature. One does find risers that have worn to the point of becoming un-serviceable, and occasionally the pair that is not re-inforced or made out of "needle-woven" webbing, but that is general rigging. Yes, I check them all for load on the nylon loop, 40 lbs, flex the webbing before hooking the risers up. Replacing Velcro and toggle keepers as needed is normal maintenance. So is cleaning release cables and making sure that the channels are in good nick. Should customers have hard riser housing, you check for good tacks or chanel integrity. Type 17 risers work well and are becoming the standard in the industry. They work exremely well with the current 3-ring system, provided that they are not reversed, have trapped cut-away cables or are mfg'd out of spec. I already found exception with the notion of building a set of riser that was too tolerant of specs, which in one case a mfg found worthy of a selling or marketing point. I'll reseve further comments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #4 May 10, 2003 ZigZag I think the mini three rings and mini risers are a step backwards from the old standard risers and rings. ...mike ----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ibellis 0 #5 May 10, 2003 Based upon some of the comments in your post, I must say that we would never have innovation if we were content to maintain the "status quo" in equipment. We would not have zero p fabric (since F111 works as proven by countless jumps), ram air reserves (since rounds work fine as proven by countless jumps), 3-ring releases (since Capewells work), etc. etc. Equipment and technology evolves, we can choose to stay with existing technology or move forward, but to say we should be "satisfied" with what we have because it is "good enough" is not our outlook at Aerodyne along with several others in our industry. I believe our sport and skydivers in general benefit from a very different attitude by some manufacturers. The desire to improve, to never be content. To research, develop and test new technology. I am glad we have people who share this sentiment with those of us at Aerodyne that strive to raise the bar a little higher where we can. Having said that, the simple fact is that the physics behind the miniforce system are well understood. Anyone that says they have not heard of incidents where jumpers could not cut away their main canopy, have not been listening. Whether the reasons for this are cable "suck through", high "g-loads", twisted risers, dirty cables/housings, etc, etc. no one is certain. Yet we now see most container manufacturers including some type of "anti twist" housing for the cutaway cable, even though it has never been proven that riser twist has been a causative factor. Similarly, it is our opinion at Aerodyne, that if a system that reduces force at the riser loop can be offered to skydivers with no decrease in strength or reliability and if this system can be offered at virtually no cost to the customer, then why not offer it? Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, whether they believe the miniforce system, the Skyhook, the mini 3-ring, type 17 risers, single point releases, hand deployed pilot chutes, zero p canopies, ram air reserves. etc. are good or bad, necessary or not, benefits, improvements, etc. I for one will have them on my rig because if I can have a system that provides an increased measure of safety, without "costing" anything in terms of functionality or cost, I will have it and I believe many others feel the same. The decision is ultimately the customers. I am confident that skydivers have historically been individuals who are not content to settle for what has come before, but have proven time and time again to embrace new or improved technology when it offers an advantage in safety, performance, etc. Blue skies, Ian Bellis President Aerodyne Research Corporation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #6 May 11, 2003 QuoteBased upon some of the comments in your post, I must say that we would never have innovation if we were content to maintain the "status quo" in equipment. We would not have zero p fabric (since F111 works as proven by countless jumps), ram air reserves (since rounds work fine as proven by countless jumps), 3-ring releases (since Capewells work), etc. etc. Bloody nonsense. The early ram-airs, (including my old Para-Sled), *were* Zero-P. Non-coated, calendered fabric was an *innovation* introduced by ParaFlite, because it packed smaller than the coated fabric. I have also watched the *innovation* from fitted jumpsuits to huge, baggy jumpsuits, and then back to fitted jumpsuits. And I have watched skydivers go from rigid helmets, to soft leather helmets, and back to rigid helmets. Skydivers are lemmings that follow fads. Don't confuse that with innovation."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brabzzz 0 #7 May 11, 2003 I'm not going to preach about loadings and details as I have ziltch rigging knowledge. But I read somewhere that the 'new' elongated ring reduces pull force to about that of the 'old' big rings...so what exactly is the point? To be honest, i love my big stainless rings with mini risers. They're big, shiney, safer and look complicated to whuffos. What more could a man want!?Regards, Mike --------------------------------------- Ex-University of Bristol Skydiving Club www.skydivebristoluni.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #8 May 11, 2003 Quote I'm not going to preach about loadings and details as I have ziltch rigging knowledge. But I read somewhere that the 'new' elongated ring reduces pull force to about that of the 'old' big rings...so what exactly is the point? To be honest, i love my big stainless rings with mini risers. They're big, shiney, safer and look complicated to whuffos. What more could a man want!?Regards, Mike Same here...big rings look cool now 'cause everyone has the little girlie ones! ...mike----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #9 May 11, 2003 Quote Don't let an engineered fashion statement fool you. Aerodyne has come up with a solution, but they still need to find a problem that it applies to!!! ummm.. just a wild assertion here, but how about increased cutaway pullforce on high-G cutaways from the lowered mechanical advantage of the mini rings?The mini rings which are, by the way, an engineered fashion statement. Way i understand it is that the new aerodyne rings keep the mini-ring scale intact and bring the mechanical advantage of the system back on-par with the old big-ring system.. which by the way, didn't need to change. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apoil 0 #10 May 12, 2003 Quote Way i understand it is that the new aerodyne rings keep the mini-ring scale intact and bring the mechanical advantage of the system back on-par with the old big-ring system.. which by the way, didn't need to change. mini risers reduce drag and allow the collapsed slider to be stowed. These mods make a difference for high speed canopy flight. Which is it's own sport within our sport. Did it NEED to change? Well, not to make our gear more reliable or safe, but it is an essential innovation that is about far more than fashion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #11 May 12, 2003 QuoteQuote Way i understand it is that the new aerodyne rings keep the mini-ring scale intact and bring the mechanical advantage of the system back on-par with the old big-ring system.. which by the way, didn't need to change. mini risers reduce drag and allow the collapsed slider to be stowed. These mods make a difference for high speed canopy flight. Which is it's own sport within our sport. Did it NEED to change? Well, not to make our gear more reliable or safe, but it is an essential innovation that is about far more than fashion. Agreed (mostly), but unfortunately you're talking about risers and i'm talking about rings. Does anyone know of any reason why there aren't (that i've seen) small risers with big rings? Is it something more than fashion? Perhaps that is exactly what Areodyne's new system is designed to address. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
