Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
190 vs. 170

 


Mixxit  (B License)

Nov 22, 2004, 12:37 PM
Post #1 of 25 (1480 views)
Shortcut
190 vs. 170 Can't Post

I am getting ready to purchase my first canopy. Without gear I weigh about 170lbs. I'm trying to decide on a good wing load. I know the "listen to your instructors" clause around here. All of my DZ people say that based on my weight and canopy skills, I should be fine on a 170. I demoed a 170 for 3 jumps. biffed one (flared too early). Sliiiiiiiid another one (flared too late). Tippy toed the third (just right, but I was on radio for that one). I like the 170 and I know I can learn to land it fairly easily. BUT should I just look for a 190 until I get more jumps under my belt? I have almost 50 jumps and have been jumping a Skymaster 230 student rig. Even though my learning curve for the 170 may be short, I still don't want to end up hurt before I get there. I've read the other posts here on the subject and the opinions seem really split. Thanks for the info!


Fab  (C License)

Nov 22, 2004, 12:57 PM
Post #2 of 25 (1461 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

** I like the 170 and I know I can learn to land it fairly easily. **

Well..there is your answer...With 50 jumps a wingloading of 1.1 isn't too much. I myself started jumping a 1.1 at jump 46. I think you will regret the 190 now you have jumped the 170 and liked it so much. You're instructors say that you will be fine under a 170. If you feel you will be fine/safe too under that canopy...then go for it...

You could rent a 190 a few jumps to master your flare on that one....then you will be able to land the 170 probably a bit better though


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 22, 2004, 1:14 PM
Post #3 of 25 (1440 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

If you can fly the 190 really well (i.e. can flare turn, flat turn, land on rear risers etc) then you're probably going to be OK with the 170. If not, go with the 190 and stick with it until you can do all that stuff.


mattjw916  (D License)

Nov 22, 2004, 1:19 PM
Post #4 of 25 (1433 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds similar to my situation at the time... except I was 210 vs 190 instead.

I went with the slightly higher loading and was happier with it (for a variety of reasons). But I also put about a couple dozen jumps on various 210s until I felt ready to try and then buy the 190 (189 actually).

The real question, since you already have a few jumps on the 170 is... are YOU comfortable landing it (or would you be)... in someone's backyard, between narrow rows of trees, downwind, crosswind?

Just something to think about. If you buy the smaller one, just take some time to get the landings and accuracy dialed in. My $0.02.


larsrulz  (C 34603)

Nov 22, 2004, 1:23 PM
Post #5 of 25 (1430 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Greensburg has an excellent group of instructors, so stick with what they say. I assume these are the people you mean when you say your DZ people, and not just random jumpers. If the radioman is an instructor you trust, then I'm sure his recommendation is a good one.

For reference, I was deciding between a 170 at 1.1 and 190 and 1.0 (sabre) when I had 25 jumps. I was perfectly happy with the 190 I got and learned to get plenty of performance out of it. Although when I downsized I jumped from a 190 to 10 or so jumps on a sabre2 170 then to my current samurai 150, so I'm probably a bad person to recommend canopies. Tongue


(This post was edited by larsrulz on Nov 22, 2004, 1:26 PM)


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Nov 22, 2004, 1:52 PM
Post #6 of 25 (1402 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Without gear you weigh about 170 -- so that with gear, you're probably about 195.

On a 170, that's about 1.15. On a 190, it's about 1:1. Not a huge difference, but you'd better be good, all of the time. Because the degree of forgiveness will be much less, and the number of times you've dealt with landing, and the variables that make it different every time, is very small.

Wendy W.


skyhighkiy  (B License)

Nov 22, 2004, 2:46 PM
Post #7 of 25 (1370 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

My true weight (without gear) is 170, when I bought my canopy it was 175
and I"ve been jumping my gear (sabre 170) since jump # 14


FrogNog  (C 34484)

Nov 22, 2004, 6:53 PM
Post #8 of 25 (1297 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

One thing that may help your decision-making process: if you buy a used 190, you won't lose as much money after you've decided you want to go to a 170.

I'm not saying which one you should buy, I'm just pointing out that if you are concerned about spending the big bucks on a canopy so you want to get the exact right one that will be with you a long time, you can take the pressure off by buying something good, cheap, and used.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Nov 22, 2004, 7:46 PM
Post #9 of 25 (1279 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you can fly the 190 really well (i.e. can flare turn, flat turn, land on rear risers etc) then you're probably going to be OK with the 170. If not, go with the 190 and stick with it until you can do all that stuff.

But nobody trains to do that stuff under 80 jumps you little devil. Sly you are.


Frenchy68  (A License)

Nov 22, 2004, 7:50 PM
Post #10 of 25 (1278 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
But nobody trains to do that stuff under 80 jumps you little devil. Sly you are.
Everyone should, especially under 80 jumps...Wink


skyhighkiy  (B License)

Nov 22, 2004, 7:52 PM
Post #11 of 25 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

with the acception of landing on rears, why not? I did.


mattjw916  (D License)

Nov 22, 2004, 8:33 PM
Post #12 of 25 (1262 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyhighkiy] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

...and me as well.

I am quite comfortable flying and flaring with rears but I haven't "put it to the test" down low yet.


TheAnvil  (D 26919)

Nov 23, 2004, 6:21 AM
Post #13 of 25 (1187 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Stick with the 190 dude. Stick with it until you can fly the hell out of it. Billvon wrote an excellent article on downsizing a while back - read that and go for the 170 when you've heeded its advice.
Smile


Scrumpot  (D License)

Nov 23, 2004, 10:44 AM
Post #14 of 25 (1136 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Are you talking about a 190 PD here vs. a 170 PD? Or a Manta vs. Manta, or a Sabre vs. Sabre, or what? A 190 PD vs a 170 Stilletto or something like that might get you a different answer from this group on here too.

Do you want to clarify if you are talking about 2 similar F111 canopies for your comparison, vs Zero-p, and/or also "square" vs. eliptical?

If you are in doubt, at only 50 jumps or so, what's the HARM in playing it "safe"? The 190 nearly regardless, for your 1st 100 jumps or so would certainly do you no harm. You can learn and DO in fact, every bit just as much on that canopy as you can/will be able to with the 170 anyway. Don't let peer pressure or fear of ridicule make you THINK you have to go to anything smaller at this juncture in your progression. What is it you are looking to accomplish with your current (or prospective) canopy? Think about THAT. Then consider if buying the 170 OVER the 190 (again depending on canopy types ...assuming they are otherwise similar) would REALLY accomplish or more quickly realize your desires.

Hope this helps.
Just another .02.
Blue Skies,
-Grant


(This post was edited by Scrumpot on Nov 23, 2004, 10:47 AM)


DancingFlame  (C 177476)

Nov 23, 2004, 11:56 PM
Post #15 of 25 (1067 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Assuming we are talking about intermediate ZP canopies (Sabre2, Safire2, Pilot etc).
Are you interested in ... well, kind of swooping? If not, then get a 190.
If you are, rent a 190 for some jumps until you can perform all the maneouvers from billvon's list.
And then get a 170 Wink


Mixxit  (B License)

Nov 24, 2004, 6:41 AM
Post #16 of 25 (1038 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the info so far! Yes, I'm basically comparing apples to apples. I'd be looking at something like a Sabre or similar in either size. Peer pressure certainly isn't a factor. It's more of a performance issue. Not to mention that used 190s are hard to find at a decent price. Any other input that you might have is mucho appreciated!


Premier Remster  (C License)

Nov 24, 2004, 8:29 AM
Post #17 of 25 (1019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Not to mention that used 190s are hard to find at a decent price

There are many reasons to want to downsize... but pricing really should come way last IMO. A few 100$ more for a conopy thats right for you is worth a lot more then its printed denomination....


Mixxit  (B License)

Nov 24, 2004, 8:46 AM
Post #18 of 25 (1015 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

No doubt! I totally agree. While I'm trying to find the best deal on all of my gear, skydiving certainly isn't a bargain shopper's sport. That's definitely not my primary reason for considering the 170. But if the 170 IS going to be safe for me, then there's no reason to stress over finding a 190.


vdschoor  (D 27300)

Nov 24, 2004, 9:38 AM
Post #19 of 25 (1004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But if the 170 IS going to be safe for me, then there's no reason to stress over finding a 190.

The 170 is going to be safe for you, there's no question about that. You've proven that you can land it (even though the decent landing you had was with a radio)
The smaller canopy will be intimidating at first but you'll get used to it, all that good stuff.. been there done that.

The thing is, the 190 might be a better choice right now, yes it's bigger and all that, but who cares? I jumped a 190 (loaded at about 1.1) for almost 400 jumps before I downsized.
When I did, I made a big jump, going from a 190 to a 150, but that was after I made a bunch of jumps on a demo 170.

If you really want the 170, go for it, but jump a 190 for a couple of weekends and get used to that, then downsize. And.. read Bill's list of things to do before you downsize.

Most important though, listen to your instructors, they know you, they have seen you land and they are right there for you to help you out.

Iwan


Scrumpot  (D License)

Nov 24, 2004, 10:49 AM
Post #20 of 25 (987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [vdschoor] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The 170 is going to be safe for you, there's no question about that. You've proven that you can land it (even though the decent landing you had was with a radio)

HUH?? ...Crazy This statement makes NO SENSE AT ALL! He's made ONLY 3 JUMPS TOTAL on a 170, and all (presumably) ON THE DROPZONE, in (again presumably) relatively "controlled" conditions. Further, on 2 out of 3 of those landings (ALL, except for the one ON RADIO) he did well, ahem... let's say less than optimally.

HE HAS NOT PROVEN ANYTHING!! If anything, quite the opposite!

Example:
I normally jump a 174 semi-eliptical. I have demo'd lot's of canopies, even as far down in size as a 119. On the 119 I made 6 jumps and actually landed all six of them magnificently (thank-you-very-much). But does that mean I had PROVEN I should own it/jump it as my regular, primary canopy? -HELL NO!! All 6 of those jumps were at a large, wide-open landing area DZ, and in optimal wind/landing pattern set up conditions. All I had proven is that I COULD land it, ...Those 6 times (and that's twice as many, for what that's worth than this kid has "landed" his)!

What happens the 1st time this kid is landing off the dropzone, or somebody in his pattern "cuts him off" or ANY of the umpteen things that can (and DO) routinely happen to all of us at some time under canopy occurs?? And it WILL. He has "biffed" 2 of his 3 landings on the 170 under "controlled" circumstances, and IMHO has been lucky. Nothing more, nothing less, let alone having PROVEN ANYTHING! Further, he is stepping down already quite significantly from student "boat" canopies as it is.

What is it that he supposedly can do, or would do, or would "gain" from jumping now, the 170 over a 190?

I've also addressed exactly just this exact SAME scenario coincidentally enough in another thread HERE. This kid needs to consider what it is he is looking to get out of his canopy at this point, and REALLY, if a 170 vs. a 190 is truly going to accomplish that for him. Other than a potential minimal cost savings, nobody has shown me yet any VALID reasoning how a 170 can. Which brings me right back around to my ORIGINAL statement, which is: what is the HARM in him getting the 190 now, over the 170?? Would that be too lightly loaded? I don't think so. He's already shown (and we all know) the very serious potential HARM (increased speed in which one can hit the ground upon a very real potential screw up) in going what going with the 170 may cause. Somebody show me the real off-setting benefit with instead going with the latter and I will acquiesce. I submit it does not exist.

You yourself say to read Bill Von's posts on this subject matter, then you directly contradict yourself with this above quoted statement!

THINK about it.
Blue Skies,
-Grant


(This post was edited by Scrumpot on Nov 24, 2004, 11:28 AM)


Scrumpot  (D License)

Nov 24, 2004, 11:10 AM
Post #21 of 25 (976 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mixxit] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
But if the 170 IS going to be safe for me, then there's no reason to stress over finding a 190.

No disrespect, but you seem to be "fishing" for the answer you have already decided that it is you "want to hear".

Look at who is already answering your questions, and in what fashion.
------------
Bill Von (world-class skydiver, organizer and instructor):
Quote:
If you can fly the 190 really well (i.e. can flare turn, flat turn, land on rear risers etc) then you're probably going to be OK with the 170. If not, go with the 190 and stick with it until you can do all that stuff.

Answer that for yourself. CAN you fly the 190 already as he has outlined?

Remster (13 yrs in the sport... "been there, seen that"):
Quote:
There are many reasons to want to downsize... but pricing really should come way last IMO. A few 100$ more for a conopy thats right for you is worth a lot more then its printed denomination....

Then more thoroughly consider what is the right answer I suppose, for you. Your answers (or at least responses ...whether you want to accept those as "answers") have already been put out there. If that is, you want to listen to them.

Best of luck and wishes, no matter which way you decide.

Blue Skies,
-Grant


vdschoor  (D 27300)

Nov 24, 2004, 11:19 AM
Post #22 of 25 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
The 170 is going to be safe for you, there's no question about that. You've proven that you can land it (even though the decent landing you had was with a radio)

HUH?? ...Crazy This statement makes NO SENSE AT ALL! He's made ONLY 3 JUMPS TOTAL on a 170, and all (presumably) ON THE DROPZONE, in (again presumably) relatively "controlled" conditions. Further, on 2 out of 3 of those landings (ALL, except for the one ON RADIO) he did well, ahem... let's say less than optimally.

HE HAS NOT PROVEN ANYTHING!! If anything, quite the opposite!

A 170 loaded at 1.1 is a safe canopy, that's my statement. I also told him that for him the 190 might be a better choice right now.
My first landing on a ZP 190 I slid in on my ass too, because the additional speed compared to the jumps on F111 210 - 280 canopies was quite intimidating.

At the time they told me "you'll be fine under a 170" and I figured I would be, but still went with the 190 because that's what I WANTED to jump.
I also said, go ahead and get the 170, BUT jump the 190 first, jump a couple of weekends on that before downsizing to the 170.

It's whatever, we can only warn him and help him make a decision. Right now I would say if the 170 is there for him, go for it, but only after jumping a 190 for a bit and flying that..
As to the biffing in landings.. practice makes perfect, my first landings on my 190 were not pretty either

Iwan


Scrumpot  (D License)

Nov 24, 2004, 12:22 PM
Post #23 of 25 (947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [vdschoor] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A 170 loaded at 1.1 is a safe canopy, that's my statement. I also told him that for him the 190 might be a better choice right now.

Actually, it is with the 190 that he would be closer to 1.1-to-1. He has previously stated that he is 170 without gear. That puts him more along 195+/- out-the-door. So, if we are going to agree that a wing loading of approx 1.1-to-1 is relatively "safe", then we are going to have to agree that the choice for him is the 190!

See also Wendy's post above (HERE), which I "second" and is worth echoing (repeating).
Quote:
Not a huge difference, but you'd better be good, all of the time. Because the degree of forgiveness will be much less, and the number of times you've dealt with landing, and the variables that make it different every time, is very small.

I stand by my original post, and that is to say that NOBODY has shown me yet, any real VALID reasoning why the 170 would be of ANY benefit (other than minimal cost considerations) at this juncture in this jumpers career over the 190.

But we do know that it COULD be a detriment.

You DID say:
Quote:
The 170 is going to be safe for you, there's no question about that.
And IMO that was wholly irresponsible. After only 3 jumps on it, and further, on 2 out of those only 3 his landings were already far less than optimal, how could ANYBODY say that??

Sure, lot's of times certain jumpers can be "lucky" under sub-optimal canopies, and come out just fine. Apparently you were one of them. That is your experience and I respect that. But to unequivocally state that there is "no question" he would be "safe" under a 170 (which IS what you did say) is downright WRONG. He MIGHT "be okay", but then again he might not. He might not be okay under the 190 either, granted, but the degree in which he may not be okay is somehwat potentially lessened by being under that 190. Would you agree with that? And without any of us actually having SEEN him land either of these (outside of his descriptions ...where 2 out of 3 except ONE UNDER RADIO he didn't ---satisfactorilly) that's all any of us can reasonably say.

Quote:
we can only warn him and help him make a decision.

On that we agree. But in stating also that he would be "safe" under the 170, I think goes against just that.

I think we are both relatively on the same page, except that I am one that will always err (and we all err! Wink) if at all possible, on the side of caution. Unless anyone can show me some truly compelling reason(s) or "attraction" why I shouldn't. ...ie: the 170 over the 190. Can he really swoop the 170 any farther at this juncture in his experience? Will he really learn anything more under it than the 190?? You tell me.

Is there any REWARD in going with the 170 now (over the 190) which beneficially offsets the RISK that would be associated in going with it, at this juncture in this jumpers career? That, to me, is the question. And as I've stated, I think as well that it has already too, been answered.

If anybody wants to self-justify (and fish for) only the answer it is that they WANT to hear, they can do that. Is that happening here? -I dunno. But I certainly won't further fuel that by leaving even the smallest of cracks open.

You may think that your responses have "qualified" that statement quoted, but trust me, all this "you might be better off with the 190 but..." Then coming out with that, totally disqualifies ALL those statements & the only thing heard is (again):
Quote:
The 170 is going to be safe for you, there's no question about that.
And that is WRONG.
This is not cautioning at all, it is ENABLING!

My opinions & responses are now out here. I'll leave 'em at that. Like I've said, I wish him the best of luck, no matter which way he decides.

Blue Skies,
-Grant


(This post was edited by Scrumpot on Nov 24, 2004, 12:24 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 24, 2004, 12:27 PM
Post #24 of 25 (944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [vdschoor] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

>A 170 loaded at 1.1 is a safe canopy . . .

It definitely can be. But I put myself in a wheelchair years ago trying to land a 190 because I didn't know what I was doing. This summer I had no problem landing a Xaos 98 off-DZ in a little overgrown field with no wind. In both cases, it wasn't the canopy that made me land safely or unsafely, it was what I did with it.

I know what you're trying to say, but I think it's more accurate to say "Joe Smith is safe with a 170" than "the 170 is a safe canopy." It has far more to do with the jumper than with the canopy.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Nov 24, 2004, 12:37 PM
Post #25 of 25 (941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] 190 vs. 170 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
He has previously stated that he is 170 without gear. That puts him more along 195+/- out-the-door.

I've recently changed my standard answer for gear weight... I always used to think 25 lbs was about right, but I checked it, and for me, on non-stainless rig wit a 150 main and 181 reserve, it came to 30lbs (29.5 to be exact) with helmet, jumpsuit, runners and light clothes.



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)