height

[rocketfeuille 0]

Ok, before anyone freaks out, I'm not planning on making a BASE jump in the near future. I am, however, very curious about it and would like to do one eventually. So, if you would be so kind as to indulge me:
What's a good height for a BASE jump? (obviously, the higher the better, but what would you comfortably settle for?)

[Zennie 0]

Problem with the way your question is phrased is that it's sort of akin to asking "What's a good shower-water temperature?"

If you clarify your question a little, I'm sure many folks here can give you a helpful answer.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[rfarris 1]

Not a bad question...

Your first question is kinda open though. I will comment on the second part of it since you asked, and this is an open forum:

My personal comfort level currently is no lower than 300' for a freefall jump. I don't do static line or buddy assist. And I don't climb much above 600'. It's (very) hard work, especially when your jumping multiple objects in one night.

Hope that answers at least part of your question, (from my perspective anyway.) There are a lot more jumpers here with broader comfort levels than this newbie!

Rod

[rocketfeuille 0]

Sorry about the ambiguity... I guess what I'm kinda wondering is this: there are a lot of mountains and cliffs around here and I wanted to know if they are jumpable... How much altitude do you all want when jumping cliff faces? What's reasonable? What's too low? Thanks.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

How much altitude do you all want when jumping cliff faces? What's reasonable? What's too low?

For cliffs and buildings especially, there are many things that are far more important than the overall altitude to impact. Without seeing a particular cliff that you are looking at, no one is going to be able to give you any real feedback on it.
Further information that is really necessary to decide if a cliff is "reasonable" include:
Distance to Landing Area. How far will you have to fly after opening?
Size of Landing Area. Will you need to set up and sink in?
Quality of Landing Area. A quick pound in is ok--if you are landing on a giant mattress (or in deep water). But if you are landing on a 45 degree talus slope, you'll need more time (i.e. altitude) to set up the landing.
Obstructions. What is there to hit? How much altitude will you need to avoid it?
Cliff Angle. Is the cliff underhung? Overhung?
Wind. In zero wind, you may be able to jump lower cliffs. In higher wind you will need to achieve more horizontal separation (which will require more vertical distance--especially if you're a pudgy bastard like me).
Other factors--there are lots. How secure is the launch? How hard is it to get there? How close is rescue in the event of an accident?
Each object is very individual, and evaluating them is about a whole lot more than absolute altitude. In fact, it's one of the most important skills you learn in BASE.
That said, the conventional wisdom is something like:
Reasonable: 400 feet
Too Low: Less than 300 feet
Static Line: 200 feet
The lowest cliff jumps I have personally witnessed over hard earth were freefalls from 173 feet. The lowest cliff freefall I have seen done over water was from 150 feet. These altitudes are pretty much absurd, though, and no one, ever, ought to attempt freefalls at such silly altitudes.
If you are looking at a particular cliff, your best bet is to get an experienced BASE jumper (one who has opened cliffs before) to have a look at it with you.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rocketfeuille 0]

Thanks for all the info, Tom. I'm not really ready for a BASE jump (in terms of experience or training), but my curiosity finally got the better of me and I made the original post. I was mostly just looking for general information. I really started thinking about it a couple weeks ago when I went climbing with some friends. We got to the top and the view was magnificent. Anyways, thanks for your time.

[Dd0g 0]

Quote

The lowest cliff jumps I have personally witnessed over hard earth were freefalls from 173 feet. The lowest cliff freefall I have seen done over water was from 150 feet. These altitudes are pretty much absurd, though, and no one, ever, ought to attempt freefalls at such silly altitudes.

Yeah, what sort of a fool would freefall a 173 foot cliff?

As Tom (accurately) points out, there's many more factors to selecting good exit points on Es than simply height to impact.

Also, remember that in general climbers consider some things to be "steep" when they are in fact underhung enough to kill BASE jumpers. I have come very close to proving this lemma myself, so there's really no need for anyone else to repeat that proof.

Peace,

D-d0g
[email protected]
http://www.wrinko.com

+~+~+~+~
But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

[DexterBase 0]

I've also learned that the term, "vertical" is very subject to personal interpritation.

If a BASE jumper tells you it's vertical, it's likeley a degree or two underhung.

If a CLIMBER tells you it's vertical, it is probably near vertical but not quite. Most likely underhung at least a little. Beware of those who solo hard or know what A5 means. (In that case it's probably exactly what they say it is.)

If a skippy flatlander says it's vertical, this can range from a level trail to a gentle slope.

I once had a person tell me they dropped a rock off a bridge and it took, "NINE SECONDS" to hit the water. Naturally my eyes probably got really big and as soon as I got off work I split with gear in hand. I found a 360 foot bridge. So apparently, "tall" has
the same problem.

[base311 0]

Quote

I once had a person tell me they dropped a rock off a bridge and it took, "NINE SECONDS" to hit the water. Naturally my eyes probably got really big and as soon as I got off work I split with gear in hand. I found a 360 foot bridge. So apparently, "tall" has
the same problem.

No doubt dude... man, if I had a dollar for every time some whuffo told me about a cliff or a bridge that was, "oh hell yeah it's at _LEAST_ 400 feet!!!"... I'd be a rich man. Truth be told I wouldn't but that's a different issue. Whuffos don't know _anything_ about how tall something is when they're standing on the ground looking up at it. In defense of whuffos it is a _very_ tough thing to just look at something and even roughly estimate its height - especially if you're not practiced. One thing I've found is my former estimates of things have been conservatively LOW. The laser rangefinder has transformed (at least in most of my cases) what was once thought to be 'too low' into what is now 'possibly doable'

Anyway, they're all right (ddog, dexter and tom): the only proper way to do an assessment is to do it yourself. As already mentioned, if you don't know how to do a proper assessment of a site, then find someone who can (and will also teach you how); find someone who has opened many sites of his or her own.

bsbd,
Gardner