Reverse riser discussion

[rhys 0]

I cut this out of the incidents forum due to thread drift as it has nothing to do with the incident. Please feel free to discuss reverse or integrity risers here.

t

tonto, i agree with all the potential situations you were mentioning earlier. but i don't understand what is wrong with reverse risers?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billbooth 10]

Quote

has the name of the deceased been published yet? I have a bad feeling i know who he is. i did my aff rating 2 years ago and a 19 year old tasmanian guy was doing his aff course. i completed my rating at the same time as he completed his stage 8.

although i only dispached him on his stage 9 he was my very first live student.

if anyone does know his name could they please P/M me for some closure?

tonto, i agree with all the potential situations you were mentioning earlier. but i don't understand what is wrong with reverse risers?

I have discussed the problems with reversed risers several times before. Do a search...then get rid of them...please.

[billvon 2,396]

> but i don't understand what is wrong with reverse risers?

If you are using them on a rig that is not designed for them, they may be slow to release on a low drag malfunction/cutaway.

[billbooth 10]

Quote

> but i don't understand what is wrong with reverse risers?

If you are using them on a rig that is not designed for them, they may be slow to release on a low drag malfunction/cutaway.

OK...I've heard about enough of this...No rig is "made" for reversed risers, because their problems are independent of the rig they're on. I know some people state that on PDF rigs, the main 3-ring is mounted higher on the main lift web, but this really doesn't make any difference. 1. Reversed risers have a lower mechanical advantage than correctly made risers. (Some designs I have tested are better than others, but because there are no published standards, it is impossible, without individual pull testing, to tell how bad your reversed risers are.) 2. If you have a bag lock that doesn't open your riser covers, or two canopies out with your risers are drawn back across your shoulders, you can't breakaway.

Since there are no advantages to reversed risers (they are not "stronger", and even if they were, what do you want to break on a super hard opening...your risers...or your harness...or your neck?), why should we use them?

[rhys 0]

understood, thanks bill

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Jasmin 0]

Rhys, there was a fatality last year here in OZ involving reverse risers (and a number of other factors) at Barwon heads.

The thread turned into a bit of a sh^t fight, but there was some good info on rear/integrity risers in it.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=979716#979716

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[ps5601 0]

Bill

I have a quick question if you wouldn't mind answering. I jump PdF gear with reverse risers so am interested in your comment that reverse risers have a lower mechanical advantage than correctly made standard ones.

Assuming that the reverse risers are correctly made why do they have a lower mechanical advantage? Is it that they are generally mini-rings, in which case is their mechanical advantage the same as a correctly made "standard" mini-ring system?

I know what you mean about the cutaway problems. I had a pilot chute in tow (with pull out too, but that's another story) earlier this year on my rig. I cutaway and dumped out the reserve. Obviously the main didn't go anywhere when I chopped as the bag was still in the container. However once the reserve left it was followed by the main. As the main risers were in front of the reserve risers the main didn't cutaway as the rings were unable to unflip themselves, even though the main started to deploy.

I finally ditched the main canopy by pulling it in to remove the pressure between the main and reserve risers and tugging the main risers forward. Made things interesting to say the least!

Cheers for your input

Blue skies

Paul

[Tonto 1]

Please do a search on this, or read the incident thread in the post above in this thread.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[nitrochute 2]

NO CURRENTLY MADE MINI RISER HAS THE SAME MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT THE ORIGINAL BIG RING RELEASE RISERS HAVE.when Manley Butler invented the mini 3 ring for para flites swift system in 1982,he kept the mechanics the same as the big ring release.(i.e. th e cross sectional thickness of the big ring is the same as the big ring release.only the ring diameters are changed.)this fact has escaped pretty near every one who has built a mini 3 ring in the last 20 years.immediately after the release of the mini 3 ring to the public,poor copies showed up including ones using the standard middle ring as the big ring.in some cases imitation is the best form of flattery,but in thiese cases it can kill you.

[tdog 0]

I love this site because I can learn something new every day...

For someone does not know what "reverse risers" are, can someone upload a photo, so I can see what they look like????

Just learning here.

[CReWLL 0]

Did this difference you mention escape notice at the URWS?

[mr2mk1g 10]

See the bottom of this page: http://www.bpa.org.uk/skydive/pages/articles/dec03/cutting-away.html

[davelepka 4]

Quote

but i don't understand what is wrong with reverse risers

Seeing as your question has already been answered, maybe you can answer my question...

What is wrong with a standard riser set-up that the reverse risers improves upon?

I ask this with the understanding that non-reinforced mini risers are a thing of the past. The original idea with the reverse riser was that it was stronger as there was no grommet punched through the riser. This was developed in the wake of mini riser failures due to improper manufacturing, which has since been resloved with the RWS publication of construction standards and specs including the needed reinforcement.

[thepollster 0]

Quote

I know what you mean about the cutaway problems. I had a pilot chute in tow (with pull out too, but that's another story) earlier this year on my rig. I cutaway and dumped out the reserve. Obviously the main didn't go anywhere when I chopped as the bag was still in the container. However once the reserve left it was followed by the main. As the main risers were in front of the reserve risers the main didn't cutaway as the rings were unable to unflip themselves, even though the main started to deploy

If you have seen problems with reverse risers, why have you not replaced your risers with conventional risers?

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

NO CURRENTLY MADE MINI RISER HAS THE SAME MECHANICAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT THE ORIGINAL BIG RING RELEASE RISERS HAVE.when Manley Butler invented the mini 3 ring for Para Flites swift system in 1982,he kept the mechanics the same as the big ring release.(i.e. the cross sectional thickness of the big ring is the same as the big ring release.only the ring diameters are changed.)this fact has escaped pretty near every one who has built a mini 3 ring in the last 20 years.immediately after the release of the mini 3 ring to the public,poor copies showed up including ones using the standard middle ring as the big ring.in some cases imitation is the best form of flattery, but in this case it can kill you.

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

Swift used (round) fat harness rings.
Parachutes de France has always used fat, slotted, mini 3-rings.
The first slotted 3-rings made by Relative Workshop were thin RW-7 ... about the same thickness as (2500 pound) triangle rings. Funny, but 3-Ring Inc has discontinued RW-7 and now only offers RW-8 slotted 3-Rings, which are about the same thickness as first-generation harness rings (same thickness as RW-1 and RW-10 slotted harness rings).

I always worried that RW-7 rings were thin enough to "knife" through risers. Furthermore, 20 years ago, TK Donle showed me an RW-7 that had a bent lower bar ... from pull testing to meet French EQ ??? standards.
Glad to see that RW-7 rings are no longer available.

[riggerrob 558]

Assuming that the reverse risers are correctly made why do they have a lower mechanical advantage?

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

Even if the ring-to-ring-to-confluence dimensions are correct, a reversed riser has only half the mechanical advantage, because it lacks the 2-to-1 pulley function on the white loop.

[NickDG 23]

>>What is wrong with a standard riser set-up that the reverse risers improves upon?<<

Reversed risers weren't better, just different, and jumpers seem to fall for that gimmick in skydiving over and over.

The only half way decent benefit to them is you don't drag the white locking loop across the ground as you stow the lines on the bag. But, just moving the bag toward the container as you stow, or using a drag mat under your rig cures that problem.

NickD BASE 194

[billbooth 10]

Quote

Assuming that the reverse risers are correctly made why do they have a lower mechanical advantage?

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

Even if the ring-to-ring-to-confluence dimensions are correct, a reversed riser has only half the mechanical advantage, because it lacks the 2-to-1 pulley function on the white loop.

My tests show roughly the same thing...the best reserve risers I have tested have 50% more pull force than mini rings with an RW-8. The worst had more than double the pull force. Again, since there are no published standards for reverse risers (that I am aware of), you can't tell how bad yours are just by looking. Reverse risers are in the same category with soft housings. They work sometimes, but not "when the chips are down).

[dragon2 0]

Quote

the best reserve risers I have tested have 50% more pull force than mini rings with an RW-8.

Reserve?

I've chopped 1 pair of normal risers, 1 pair of mini risers and 4x the same pair of reversed risers (PDF, on a PDF rig). I could've sworn there is no difference in pull force, and I'm a wimp really. Only the regular risers took some pulling, only got it the 2nd time, after peeling (duh). The rest, no problem, even with twists all the way. There probably was some difference, I just didn't notice having to pull at all hard to release, also in non-stress situations (intentionals, and chopping while at the same time telling my spectre I don't jump one for nothing ). Non scientific of course, but also, no problem.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[billbooth 10]

The minimum 50% increase in pull force for reversed risers doesn't matter, and probably can't be noticed by the jumper if the pull force is low: ie. 4 lbs. vs 6 lbs. Your reversed risers might be "good" ones. But how can you tell, with so many different versions out there, with no published specs? A high "G" breakaway with a really bad pair can be very difficult.

[phoenixlpr 0]

You should be right. If its not an improvement of the original design it should not be out there.

[NickDG 23]

In addition Type-8 (large risers) with mini-rings installed are no bargain either. The last time I had a berserk Stiletto overhead I was seconds away from dumping my reserve into it, as I couldn't at first, budge the cutaway handle. I strained so hard to get the cables out I landed with busted blood vessels in my eyeballs . . .

NickD BASE 194

[brianfry713 0]

I think I understand the cutaway problems with reverse risers while skydiving (don't use them). In BASE however, how I understand it, the reverse risers are stronger because of the lack of the hole in the center. I don't care about a hard cutaway since I'm only wearing one parachute that I want to stay attached until I'm on the ground. Is it true that reverse risers are better/stronger/safer for a single parachute system that you still want to be able to cut away in case of water landings or other times you need to ditch the canopy on the ground?

BASE 1224, Senior Parachute Rigger, CPL ASEL IA, AGI, IGI
USPA Coach & UPT Tandem Instructor, PRO, Altimaster Field Support Representative

[billbooth 10]

Every "broken-from-hard-opening" mini riser I have ever seen, broke where it goes around the harness ring, not at the grommet. So, removing the grommet doesn't necessarily make the riser stronger.

[parafredo 0]

It is just funny to see that some jumpers are still arguing with Bill about 3 rings system...If you want to be test jumper with those reverse risers,fine with me,but next time you have a hard cutaway due to this design..please do not cry about your situation.Just hope to be in shape and well to discuss about your experience next time on this forum.Believe me,I have a lot of respect for PDF product but for this matter,risers,there is NO advantage about reversing the system exept maybe trying to re-invent the wheel.