Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
Optimum Reserve

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

RM1  (D 28681)

Aug 14, 2007, 2:20 PM
Post #26 of 52 (3458 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Spizzzarko] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

I did the rs1 with a cypres 1


Spizzzarko

Aug 14, 2007, 3:58 PM
Post #27 of 52 (3423 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RM1] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Cool. Thanks for the info!


freakyrat  (D 12700)

Mar 2, 2008, 11:13 AM
Post #28 of 52 (3093 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Just put a Optimum 143 in my Micron 310 made for a regular 143R reserve. I mean a regular PD143R would be tight in this container up here in Dallas but the Optimum fits nicely and fills out the container well and is not to loose. I'm going to put a Optimum 126 in my Mirage G4 MT which has a regular 126R in it now that is a bare to pack and close. The larger Optimum should fit very nice as a regular PD113R would have been a better fit in this particular container.

Chris


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 3, 2008, 8:10 AM
Post #29 of 52 (2978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakyrat] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

What?
Are you implying that PD took pity on riggers whose customers insist on packing 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag?
Is PD trying to atone for the PD113R fiasco?


freakyrat  (D 12700)

Mar 3, 2008, 11:45 AM
Post #30 of 52 (2928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know Rob but the Optimum 126 will fit better in my Mirage and I have to say the Optimum 143 fits great in my Micron V310 and the rig is extremely comfortable with the spacer foam backpad and added bonus. It just doesn't fell like a brick. Humidity has a lot to do in how the rigs pack. You can probably put a lot of canopies in these rigs in Florida but they are just to tight here in Texas. Some people would try to fit the maximum size parachutes that the rig can allow making it hard on their riggers and themselves when they pack.

The Optimum is a great flying reserve canopy also.

Chris


980  (D 980)

Mar 5, 2008, 8:44 AM
Post #31 of 52 (2798 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Is PD trying to atone for the PD113R fiasco?

please expand on that


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 5, 2008, 9:53 PM
Post #32 of 52 (2675 views)
Shortcut
Re: [980] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Is PD trying to atone for the PD113R fiasco?

please expand on that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Back in the mid 1990s, Performance Designs made the mistake of trying to sell the smallest reserve on the market.
The biggest (pun intended) obstacle was that PISA was already selling Tempo 120s and Precision was already selling Micro Raven 120s.
PD did not dare go that small, but their marketeers still wanted to sell the smallest reserve, so they just hung a smaller number on it!

Much of the confusion originated from three different measuring methods. PISA stuck with the old Para-Flite/PIA method of measuring span 6 inches back from the top leading edge.
Precision used a slightly different measuring method, but finished Precision canopies were always slightly smaller (using PIA measuring method) than quoted.
Then PD introduced a third measuring method. Since PD measured span across the bottom skin, their canopies always flew 10 or 15 percent "bigger" than their published size. A PD113R is more like 125 square feet if measured by PIA methods.

The extra fabric, plus extra (span-wise reinforcing) tapes made PD113 reserves pack significantly (10 or 15 percent) larger than Tempo 120s or Raven 120s.

The end result was a lot of frustrated riggers.

I had to pack the first PD113Rs into '94 Talon T0 containers for (World Champion in Women's Freestyle) Dale Stewart.
It was always a struggle to pack PD113Rs in to containers that gracefully accepted Tempo 120s and Raven 120s.
GRRRRRR!
Anger!!!!!
Frustration!!!!!
Then a bunch of stupid, fat, white men decided it would be fashionable to jump the smallest reserve on the market.
ROFLMAO

The problem was that PD never built the smallest reserve.


Cloudi  (C 35301)

Mar 7, 2008, 1:59 PM
Post #33 of 52 (2579 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Here are comments regarding Rob Warner’s recollection of history from John LeBlanc; Vice President of Performance Designs, Inc. I asked permission to post it because it is very educational and will give some people out there a little more insight into the issue of canopy sizing.

Quote:
“Rob’s description of a “fiasco” created by PD because we were intent on having “the smallest reserve” available at that time is a bit skewed and quite false. From the viewpoint of a rigger who was forced to pack canopies into containers that weren’t built to accommodate them, it may have seemed like a “marketing scheme gone horribly wrong,” but that simply isn’t what happened. PD has always been quite clear about our advertised size claims, despite how some may perceive them due to their lack of understanding of the process.


Rob’s comment – “Back in the mid 1990s, Performance Designs made the mistake of trying to sell the smallest reserve on the market.
The biggest (pun intended) obstacle was that PISA was already selling Tempo 120s and Precision was already selling Micro Raven 120s.
PD did not dare go that small, but their marketeers still wanted to sell the smallest reserve, so they just hung a smaller number on it!


PD’s customers requested one size smaller from the 126, so a 113 was designed, tested, and produced using the exact same scaling system and measuring technique as all canopies we have produced since the original PD nine cells. PD didn’t put emphasis on whether the 113 was the “smallest” since we knew about the measuring differences between companies. We simply responded to what the market was asking for by building a smaller size reserve than our PR-126.

Had PD “just hung a smaller number” on the canopy to appease the Marketing Dept. or to try to fool jumpers into thinking it was the “smallest” reserve, it would be quite obvious by comparing the measurements (using any one method) of each size, all the way to the 113. This comment was unnecessary and incorrect. Whether intended or not, that type of unfounded statement can potentially tarnish the trust that PD has worked extremely hard to earn from its customers and the skydiving industry for 25 years.



Rob’s comment – “Much of the confusion originated from three different measuring methods. PISA stuck with the old Para-Flite/PIA method of measuring span 6 inches back from the top leading edge. Precision used a slightly different measuring method, but finished Precision canopies were always slightly smaller (using PIA measuring method) than quoted.
Then PD introduced a third measuring method. Since PD measured span across the bottom skin, their canopies always flew 10 or 15 percent "bigger" than their published size. A PD113R is more like 125 square feet if measured by PIA methods.


PD and Precision independently created their respective measurement methods before PIA created theirs. Once PIA introduced their method, both companies were reluctant to change to the PIA method for a couple reasons. Precision would have to define their own reasons, but here are PD’s reasons:

·People were accustomed to what a particular PD canopy size would do for them. Changing to the PIA method would have those people unknowingly jumping a size smaller than previously advertised by PD. PD felt that would be unsafe.

·The PIA method requires that the span measurement (wing tip to wing tip) begin 6” aft of the leading edge, regardless of the shape or size of the wing. While that might work for canopies designed with a traditional “square” shape that are the same span at any point from the leading edge to the tail, contoured top skin changes for improved performance made that method unrealistic
[see attachment]. For example, 6” aft from the leading edge on a 176, compared to 6” aft on a 113 would put the measurement area at different “locations” on each canopy, changing the aspect ratio from one size to the next, even though it literally hasn’t changed in a scaled series of canopies (like the PD Reserve).


Rob’s comment – “The extra fabric, plus extra (span-wise reinforcing) tapes made PD113 reserves pack significantly (10 or 15 percent) larger than Tempo 120s or Raven 120s.

It was very clear to PD that the PR-113 would not pack smaller than a Micro Raven 120, since Precision canopies have always packed smaller than PD canopies when comparing advertised square footage. The PR-126 packed bigger than a Micro Raven 135, so why would PD expect otherwise when comparing our 113 to Precision’s 120? PD published a 328 cu. in. pack volume for the 113 while Precision was publishing a 199 cu. in. volume for their Micro Raven 120, so rather than attempting to market the 113 as the “smallest reserve” as Rob claims, we actually acknowledged, quite publicly, that the 113 would not pack smaller than the Micro Raven 120. Where’s the conspiracy?


Rob’s comment – “The end result was a lot of frustrated riggers.

Most canopy manufacturers, PD included, provide their canopies to harness/container manufacturers for sizing purposes. Relying on subjective, often varying measuring methods to create the proper sized container for a given canopy can be completely avoided with this procedure, while also allowing for variations from one fabric lot to another that are out of the canopy manufacturer’s control. Frustrated riggers should suggest their customers contact the manufacturer of their harness/container system to determine what size container will accommodate their canopy choices.

There is, and has been, an article that goes into more detail regarding canopy measuring and pack volumes on the PD website in the “Support/Sport/Articles” section, titled “Pack Volume: The Untold Story” by Ian Bellis.

I’m not interested in arguing this topic, but I did want to present some reality and fact so people could make their own educated conclusions.”

John LeBlanc
Attachments: Aspect Ratio Variances.xls (14.5 KB)


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Mar 8, 2008, 10:54 AM
Post #34 of 52 (2486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Cloudi] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, I'll bite.
Is Nunya really your last name? Go ahead and say it.
I'm ready for it.

BTW: thanks for posting John's perspective. I remember all the confusion with PIA's way of measuring canopies. I also remember PD publishing that the 113 packed bigger than the 120s on the market. People should look at pack volumes and contact the rig manufacturer to know what rig will allow their canopy choices.


Cloudi  (C 35301)

Mar 10, 2008, 7:52 AM
Post #35 of 52 (2339 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skydivesg] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Is Nunya really your last name? Go ahead and say it.
I'm ready for it.

Nunya Bidnes Laugh

I can say my real last name, can you? Angelic


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Mar 10, 2008, 8:34 AM
Post #36 of 52 (2323 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Cloudi] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Why, yes I can.
I've been schooled by "Junior" (with a soft J).


freakyrat  (D 12700)

Mar 11, 2008, 6:04 PM
Post #37 of 52 (2220 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Cloudi] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Kim,

Just wanted to let you know that the Optimum 143 reserve drops in beautifully in my new Micron V310. It is neither to soft or to tight. It is just right fills out the container nicely. Sometimes when these small rigs get away from Florida and the humidity the reserves are just a pain for the riggers to pack and the rigs feel like a brick on the persons back. I also have a really tight Mirage G4 MT size container that has a regular PD126R reserve in it that is a real bare for my rigger to pack here in Dallas, TX and I'm going to be putting an Optimum 126 reserve into. These reserves should pack one size down from the regular reserves but taking into consideration that Dallas is drier than Houston the Optimum packs about a half size down in Vectors and Mirages up here and makes the containers look good and feel good on the jumper's back. Again the Optimum 143 reserve looks really good in my Micron and I have complete confidence in it.

Chris


Cloudi  (C 35301)

Mar 11, 2008, 7:03 PM
Post #38 of 52 (2206 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freakyrat] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Chris. Another example of one of the many variables that go into the "pack volume" of canopies.

Thanks for sharing that. In Florida, sometimes we forget about the drier air found in many other parts of the country (and the world) for most of the year. We only get that for a couple weeks a year here & it makes packing a nightmare when you have a tight fit to start. Unsure

Glad to hear your OP-143 is working well for your rig in all conditions. Good on you and the h/c manufacturer for taking it all into consideration. Cool


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 13, 2008, 9:42 AM
Post #39 of 52 (2120 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Cloudi] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry John,

I never wanted to pick an argument with you.

It was just the whinging of a frustrated field rigger.

Our frustration is over canopy manufacturers never agreeing on a measuring method, then customers asking us to pack PD126R into containers designed for Raven 120. Customers did not want to listen when I told them that a PD126R packed two sizes larger than a Raven 120 and there was no way I wanted to waste my time on that struggle.

As for container manufacturers advertising the wrong size reserves in their containers: I watched Sandy Reid compression test dozens of new canopies in the official PIA volume test chamber. Then I test-packed all the Talon 2, Telesis 2, Aviator, etc. prototypes and told him "A PD113R is a struggle in a Talon T0, or an Amigo 172 is a struggle to pack into a Talon T5."
Then Sandy ignored my recommendations.

I have also publicly criticized Jump Shack for publishing compatiblity numbers that might be relevant in humid Florida, but are ridiculously tight in the California desert.

I am old enough to remember al the different canopy manufacturers using different measuring methods when I started jumping in 1977. Para-Flite used one method, North American Aerodynamics used a second method. We think Pioneer copied Para-Flite's method, but then Comet introduced ANOTHER method.
When I published an article entitled "Wing-Loading" (CANPARA Magazine 1983) little did I know how silly it was, because numbers from different canopies manufactures could not be compared.
When the Parachute industry Association published Technical Standard 100 in 1984, we breathed a sigh of relief, glad that manufacturers had agreed on ONE standard.
Our glee did not last.
whinging, whinging, whinging,


sundevil777  (D License)

Mar 13, 2008, 10:38 PM
Post #40 of 52 (2056 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have also publicly criticized Jump Shack for publishing compatiblity numbers that might be relevant in humid Florida, but are ridiculously tight in the California desert.

I would think that riggers might keep a couple cheap humidifiers handy to improve conditions when needed. Of course this can't help those that have to pack in the outdoors, and many inspections are done outdoors or in large hangers. Don't you think that most riggers could find a room to do the actual packing that is fairly easy to humidify?


(This post was edited by sundevil777 on Mar 13, 2008, 10:38 PM)


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 14, 2008, 8:42 AM
Post #41 of 52 (2010 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

We used to install swamp coolers in lofts in Southern California, but all they did was convert dry hot air into muggy, hot air.
They made the lofts feel like swamps????


mnealtx  (B 30496)

Mar 14, 2008, 8:45 AM
Post #42 of 52 (2006 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We used to install swamp coolers in lofts in Southern California, but all they did was convert dry hot air into muggy, hot air.
They made the lofts feel like swamps????

Sounds like they forgot about the 'cooler' part, huh?


sundevil777  (D License)

Mar 15, 2008, 7:48 AM
Post #43 of 52 (1941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We used to install swamp coolers in lofts in Southern California, but all they did was convert dry hot air into muggy, hot air.
They made the lofts feel like swamps????

As a former resident of Phoenix for 14 years, I can definitely say that swamp coolers can be very effective, but only when the humidity is pretty low. Most people with swamp coolers also had a regular air conditioning system for the times when the swamp cooler couldn't do it.


diablopilot  (D License)

Mar 15, 2008, 2:15 PM
Post #44 of 52 (1902 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I have also publicly criticized Jump Shack for publishing compatiblity numbers that might be relevant in humid Florida, but are ridiculously tight in the California desert.

I would think that riggers might keep a couple cheap humidifiers handy to improve conditions when needed. Of course this can't help those that have to pack in the outdoors, and many inspections are done outdoors or in large hangers. Don't you think that most riggers could find a room to do the actual packing that is fairly easy to humidify?


Why would you want to add humidity to a pack job? It's rather the loft where my gear is serviced and stored have a DE-humidifier.

The loft in Perris had the coolest de-humidifier I've ever seen. It's a water cooler that uses atmospheric moisture as it's source.


sundevil777  (D License)

Mar 15, 2008, 6:09 PM
Post #45 of 52 (1877 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why would you want to add humidity to a pack job?

It is my understanding, reported by many riggers, that parachutes will pack smaller in a humid rather than dry environment.

In reply to:
The loft in Perris had the coolest de-humidifier I've ever seen. It's a water cooler that uses atmospheric moisture as it's source.

I cannot make sense of that, do you have more information? How long ago did you see it? Perhaps someone from Perris will explain.


(This post was edited by sundevil777 on Mar 15, 2008, 6:11 PM)


diablopilot  (D License)

Mar 15, 2008, 9:09 PM
Post #46 of 52 (1856 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.air2water.net/...roducts_aquosus.html

http://www.engadget.com/...otable-water-device/


sundevil777  (D License)

Mar 16, 2008, 12:13 AM
Post #47 of 52 (1841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

I get it now, thanks. I've often joked that when the rivers run dry the desert areas will have to resort to getting water in this way (collecting the condensate from an air conditioner's evaporator instead of just letting it drip onto the ground). I wonder how much in energy cost is spent to obtain the water, and if you're including the extra heat load added to the room where it is operated (power to drive the compressor and the unit's heat from the condensor appears to be dumped into the room where it is operated - not vented outside). Of course that would be welcome in a cold climate where the room needs to be heated anyway.

But back to the thread topic, isn't it an accepted fact that parachutes pack smaller in a humid environment?


(This post was edited by sundevil777 on Mar 16, 2008, 12:23 AM)


Auryn  (D 27808)

Mar 16, 2008, 12:55 AM
Post #48 of 52 (1831 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Cloudi] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hey Chris. Another example of one of the many variables that go into the "pack volume" of canopies.

Thanks for sharing that. In Florida, sometimes we forget about the drier air found in many other parts of the country (and the world) for most of the year. We only get that for a couple weeks a year here & it makes packing a nightmare when you have a tight fit to start. Unsure

Glad to hear your OP-143 is working well for your rig in all conditions. Good on you and the h/c manufacturer for taking it all into consideration. Cool

"drier air found in many other parts of the country"

try Minnesota on March 15th 2008. The air was so dry I could not breathe, function etc in the lack of humidity here. If someone were to ask me to pack a canopy in these conditions, I would simply refuse. (keep in mind, in MN the season opens right about now) There is a HUGE difference that humidity makes when packing.

so, this leads me to a bigger question. Are the canopy misters that I hear about at Perris real? if so, I might personally spend the money to get them installed at my home DZ in OH. It can get just as bitchingly dry there as anywhere else.

But I digress, are the canopy misters real at Perris? Gotta Know, Gotta Know.

Bryan


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 16, 2008, 8:44 AM
Post #49 of 52 (1792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Getting off topic here ....
Desert dwellers will probably be able to extract water from air - with less artificial energy expenditure - by depending upon daily temperature fluctuations.
Consider how much more humidity 100 degree (fahrenheit) air can hold than freezing air. The trick is to capture humid air in the afternoon and wait until it cools and drops its moisture at night.
Sort of like the solar stills in survival kits. ... just a sheet of clear plastic, a bottle and a straw.


Cloudi  (C 35301)

Mar 18, 2008, 12:29 PM
Post #50 of 52 (1681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Auryn] Optimum Reserve [In reply to] Can't Post

Don't know if you meant to ask me or not, but canopy "misters" aren't something we want or need here in Florida.

Sorry, you'll have to ask someone who lives in Perris about that or maybe somebody will chime in. Smile

Edit to add: If they exist, they are hopefully only used for a main that will be soon jumped and aired out. Maybe not the best idea, but "moist" reserves packed away for 120 days would definitely be a really bad idea...


(This post was edited by Cloudi on Mar 18, 2008, 12:34 PM)


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)