First BASE Gear

[JFK 0]

Hi guys!
I'm pretty new here but have few questions.

I will start BASE jumping this spring and as I'm traveling to US before I want to bring back a BASE gear from there.

For now I'm thinking of ordering a Gargoyle (with dynamic corners) and a Troll MDV 265 (I weight about 200lbs with skydiving gear).

I've been reading a lot, got advice from local BASE jumpers and considering Tom's advice I'm wondering if my choice is good.
I live now where it could be possible to jump A's and B's, but I'm from the French Alps (parents still live there, and grand-parents have a spot over their garden ) and will start over there (B first).
I'm not keen on low height jumps, but I know that sometimes you have objects you want to jump that are rather low.

Thanks for your advice.

Julien.

JFK #1013
PM Me
No Adrenalin.... No Fun!
"Minds are like parachutes the

[nicrussell 0]

Rig selection is fine, everyone has different opinions. But to start off on a B seems a little misguided. Maybe you were implying B as Bridge and NOT Building.

[Mikki_ZH 0]

See:
http://www.blincmagazine.com/cms/article_307.shtml

Edit to add:
I don't know how to make it clicky

Michi (#1068)
hsbc/gba/sba
www.swissbaseassociation.ch
www.michibase.ch

[RhondaLea 3]

Now it's a clicky

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Rig selection is fine, everyone has different opinions. But to start off on a B seems a little misguided. Maybe you were implying B as Bridge and NOT Building.

I had JFK on MSN a couple of days ago, I think he indeed means S, and not B

Julz, B is Building, not Bridge

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[JFK 0]

Quote

Quote

Rig selection is fine, everyone has different opinions. But to start off on a B seems a little misguided. Maybe you were implying B as Bridge and NOT Building.

I had JFK on MSN a couple of days ago, I think he indeed means S, and not B

Julz, B is Building, not Bridge

Yep sorry guys, I shortened my message too quickly.
I meant S of course.
Thanks for your advices I will check the link.

Jul.

JFK #1013
PM Me
No Adrenalin.... No Fun!
"Minds are like parachutes the

[hookitt 0]

The same article is linked right at the top of the page. My First BASE Rig

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[JFK 0]

Quote

The same article is linked right at the top of the page. My First BASE Rig

Yep I've read this one and I was wondering about the MDV on the Troll but seems that Troll without MDV and Troll with MDV have different behaviour. After reading a bit more seems Troll+MDV is a good combination.

What do you think?

Jul.

JFK #1013
PM Me
No Adrenalin.... No Fun!
"Minds are like parachutes the

[TomAiello 25]

I like the Troll with MDV. Also the Troll is quite popular in Europe generally, so you ought to be able to find folks who have them if you need help/advice with the canopy as you progress.

Since I wrote that article, it's become increasingly difficult to find Visions. The closest thing, in my opinion, is Ray Losli's Soft Cock (cue skinflicka with witty comment). Unfortunately you can't get them over there.

The Gargoyle is an excellent rig, especially if you are planning on trips to Norway (or the Alps) for big walls.

Troll MDV in Gargoyle sounds like a good choice for your application.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JFK 0]

Quote

I like the Troll with MDV. Also the Troll is quite popular in Europe generally, so you ought to be able to find folks who have them if you need help/advice with the canopy as you progress.

Yep this canopy has been advised to me many times already.

Quote

Troll MDV in Gargoyle sounds like a good choice for your application.

Thanks, I think that confirm my idea and I will order soon ;-)

Jul.

JFK #1013
PM Me
No Adrenalin.... No Fun!
"Minds are like parachutes the

[Skydawg 0]

Hey Tom, In that article you advise against vents n' valves...

Quote

I believe that beginners should avoid canopies with bottom skin inlets. There are several reasons for this. First, no beginner should jump a system that has poorly understood effects of any kind. Second, a beginner should not be jumping objects in which the advantages of secondary inlets are critical (for example, opening very near to an object). Third, secondary inlets add expense to the canopy (especially the one-way valve systems, which are generally superior to the open vents). My recommendation is to avoid bottom skin inlets until you know enough to want them for your particular (advanced) jumping style.

Do you honestly believe that vents are not safe for beginners

[DexterBase 0]

Quote

Since I wrote that article, it's become increasingly difficult to find Visions. The closest thing, in my opinion, is Ray Losli's Soft Cock (cue skinflicka with witty comment). Unfortunately you can't get them over there.

Interesting... Maybe Ray will make me a dealer.

RAY!

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Do you honestly believe that vents are not safe for beginners

Some separate thoughts:

1) I wrote that article some time ago. At that time, in my opinion, there was not sufficient field evidence to declare bottom skin inlets "proven in the field" and I think beginners should stick to rock solid, tried and true, simple gear. Were I writing it today (there's a rewrite somewhere on my hard drive, amongst my seemingly endless "to do" list), I would probably recommend secondary inlets for some jumpers.


2) Whether or not secondary inlets are worth the money depends greatly on your particular jumping conditions.

Dwain once said to me "well, what are you going to do when your beginner has a 180 off an underhung cliff?" My gut response was "what the heck are you doing putting a beginner off an underhung cliff?"

But, in truth, there are parts of the world where low and/or underhung objects are jumped by beginners. Usually this is (as in Australia, which I think you are in) because there isn't a terribly good selection of objects.

So that whole exchange between Dwain and I was based on the fact that he was used to seeing beginners jumping those objects (in Oz) and I was used to seeing people rack up many (sometimes several hundred) jumps off much safer objects (in Northern California) before moving to such sites.

I believe it is silly to recommend that everyone get canopies with bottom skin inlets. I know many jumpers who paid the extra 400 bucks for valves, and jump terminal walls, or only wind-through towers (or some other set of sites where the valves aren't really very important). In fact, I'd guess the majority of folks with secondary inlets fall into this category.


3) Canopies with overly deep brakes and vents _do_ experience back surge on opening. I've had it happen, when testing some things. I've also seen a jumper hung on an object due to backsurge (which, despite an on-heading opening, pushed him back into an underhung tower--precisely the kind of situation where you'd think vents would be recommended).

At least one major manufacturer (the one that pushed secondary inlets for all jumpers) told people to never, under any circumstances customize their DBS (my thoughts on this are a whole separate thread, but suffice to say I think it borders on criminal negligence). Combine these two and you create a situation where someone could easily find themselves with overly deep brakes, which they have not customized (per manufacturers recommendation), and with secondary inlets (creating backsurge, when combined with the overly deep brakes) pushed by the canopy manufacturer.

Given this, I think it unwise to universally endorse the addition of secondary inlets on a canopy without further evaluating the situation.


So, there you go, my rant for the evening...

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Skydawg 0]

Quote

I believe it is silly to recommend that everyone get canopies with bottom skin inlets. I know many jumpers who paid the extra 400 bucks for valves, and jump terminal walls, or only wind-through towers (or some other set of sites where the valves aren't really very important). In fact, I'd guess the majority of folks with secondary inlets fall into this category.

So other than cost, vents and valves don't make much of a difference one way or another where the chances of an object strike are low. However they would add flexibility for more technical jumps in the future.

Quote

Canopies with overly deep brakes and vents _do_ experience back surge on opening.

I agree completely.

Quote

At least one major manufacturer (the one that pushed secondary inlets for all jumpers) told people to never, under any circumstances customize their DBS (my thoughts on this are a whole separate thread, but suffice to say I think it borders on criminal negligence).

Yep, therefore they would have to be on the conservative side, as they wouldn't want people opening in a stall. (I agree though, that everyone should customise their DBS)

Quote

Combine these two and you create a situation where someone could easily find themselves with overly deep brakes, which they have not customized (per manufacturers recommendation), and with secondary inlets (creating backsurge, when combined with the overly deep brakes) pushed by the canopy manufacturer.

So in other words, the higher the wing loading, the more inappropriate the standard DBS with respect to backsurge, or is it the lower the wing loading?

But back to the topic, with a customised DBS would you then recommend secondary inlets?

Quote

So, there you go, my rant for the evening

Thanks Tom, actually very informative.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

So other than cost, vents and valves don't make much of a difference one way or another where the chances of an object strike are low. However they would add flexibility for more technical jumps in the future.

Definitely true. But recognize that there are areas of the world where jumpers never progress to what you might consider more technical jumps. I know jumpers with hundreds of jumps who've never had to worry about that.

And if that's the case, you probably ought to buy a second canopy for the nasty stuff, after (a) canopies advance for another year or three, (b) you know better what you like, and have seen more canopies in action, and (c) you've worn out that first canopy anyway.

Quote

So in other words, the higher the wing loading, the more inappropriate the standard DBS with respect to backsurge, or is it the lower the wing loading?

Lower wingloading. Lower wingloading will make the same (absolute) brake setting point "deeper" relative to the jumper. So more weight = deeper (further toward the cascade) brakes.

One of the things that concerned me at the time was that I'd see new jumpers hearing Dwain say "get a canopy with vtec" and also "lighter wingloading will save you in bad situation" (both of which were solid advice), but they'd also hear BR saying "don't touch our brake setting." But Dwain was talking about wingloadings pushing .6, and BR was setting their brakes for their recommended wingloading of .75. End result? They'd follow all the expert advice and manufacturer recommendations, and end up with a low wingloading, vents, and brakes they didn't customize (which were set for someone substantially heavier than they). That's a classic backsurge scenario--and I saw it happen (several times over my own head).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[fly 0]

So back to your original question...

As of last night I am the lucky owner of a shiny new Gargoyle and Troll 265 MDV. I spent most of the night going over every line, cascade, crossport, valve and everything else you could think of and all I can say is that it is top class workmanship all the way.

Will hopefully be jumping it tomorrow and will be able to add more comments then.
(shit-eating grin)

G

"Thou shall not take thine altitude for granted for the earth shall rise up and smite thee."

[Nonoski 0]

Thanks Tom, this is a very interesting thread.

I need to make something clear : isn't the backsurge on opening the beginning of a stall ? If it is, what has this to do with vents ?
I thought that stall on opening could occur if wingloading was too low and brakes too deep, but i also thought that precisely, one of the purpose of vents was to make the stall point "further"...

I'm interested in getting a vented canopy, my wingloading is a bit low, and I never customize my gear... So this thread is of a great interest for me !

[Treejumps 0]

By a Huck-It.

I make them, they are quite inexpensive 2 pin rigs of exceptional quality and comfort. Just last night a Huck-It jumper was tickeld pink with his new toy. His delay was a different story, but he had fun all the same.

Just Huck-It!

Cya.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I need to make something clear : isn't the backsurge on opening the beginning of a stall ? If it is, what has this to do with vents ?
I thought that stall on opening could occur if wingloading was too low and brakes too deep, but i also thought that precisely, one of the purpose of vents was to make the stall point "further"...

No. The reason I say this is that I have taken exactly the same canopy and sewn vents (no valves--this was before valves were released) into it. Using the same deep brake setting as before (which was properly set), the canopy began experiencing back surge. When I reported this phenomenon to the manufacturer, their response was "don't worry, we're taking the deeper setting out of all future canopies, and telling people not to change them, so it shouldn't be a big issue for most people."

I believe the backsurge occurs because the air forced up into the canopy through the nose is then pushed out the nose, forcing the canopy backward in a classic "action-reaction" way. This backward motion momentarily stalls the wing. However, if you experience back surge, but do not touch the control inputs (I did this too, off a bridge, to examine this phenomenon), the canopy then begins to fly (slowly, as it is in deep brakes) and is not stalled.

In fairness, I do not know that anyone has really analyzed this phenomenon in depth. The closest I've seen to an attempt was done by Consolidated Rigging, during the development of the Blackjack canopy, when they attached streamers to various points to track air flow, and the canopy was deployed numerous times in various brake configurations (some of them too deep).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

However they would add flexibility for more technical jumps in the future.

Another thought that just hit me.

Every manufacturer is willing to retrofit their canopies with secondary inlets of some kind. It would be just as easy to have them added later, when you know you want the, (and know you want to spend the money).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JFK 0]

Quote

Quote

However they would add flexibility for more technical jumps in the future.

Another thought that just hit me.

Every manufacturer is willing to retrofit their canopies with secondary inlets of some kind. It would be just as easy to have them added later, when you know you want the, (and know you want to spend the money).

Could be interesting but for us in Europe it means spending money in shipping too... so might be worth the investment at the beginning... don't you think so?

JFK #1013
PM Me
No Adrenalin.... No Fun!
"Minds are like parachutes the

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Could be interesting but for us in Europe it means spending money in shipping too... so might be worth the investment at the beginning... don't you think so?

Could be. Although if you are buying a Troll, wouldn't you just have to send it to Stane in Slovenia? So that would actually be the least shipping for retrofit of your canopy options.

Still, I think that the Troll in particular has poor enough openings unvented that it's worth buying the MDV option up front. It's also got very well designed valves, which, in my opinion, are superior to the other options on the market (I feel strongly enough about this that I once had another manufacturers canopy retrofitted with MDV style valves by a third party).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JFK 0]

Quote

Quote

Could be interesting but for us in Europe it means spending money in shipping too... so might be worth the investment at the beginning... don't you think so?

Could be. Although if you are buying a Troll, wouldn't you just have to send it to Stane in Slovenia? So that would actually be the least shipping for retrofit of your canopy options.

True.. still lot of things to learn, like manufacturer addresses ;-)

Quote

Still, I think that the Troll in particular has poor enough openings unvented that it's worth buying the MDV option up front. It's also got very well designed valves, which, in my opinion, are superior to the other options on the market (I feel strongly enough about this that I once had another manufacturers canopy retrofitted with MDV style valves by a third party).

[peterk 0]

Quote

I believe the backsurge occurs because the air forced up into the canopy through the nose is then pushed out the nose, forcing the canopy backward in a classic "action-reaction" way. This backward motion momentarily stalls the wing.

AIRLOCKS with bottom skin vents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, if there is a manufacturer out there that is willing to make one, (again?) I'll buy one...
There seems to be another potential advantage!

---------------
Peter
BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime

[flite 0]

I am a new at BASE also. I went for the Gargoyle/ Troll MDV 265. Absolutely love it . Workmanship , quality , design and performance are excellent.