Andybilly 0 #1 December 20, 2005 Can anyone tell me the benefits of paying an extra $250 for hip & chest articulation on a container. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ncfitzge 0 #2 December 20, 2005 Its more comfortable for all those fat people out there. *waits for flaming*#148 Sonic Scrat "Have you ever kissed a rabbit between the eyes?" Woodpecker pulling out his pants pockets to the waitress Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #3 December 20, 2005 #1 - looks cool. #2 - it makes the harness more flexible, which can make it more comfortable. Note that in some cases a more flexible harness could present additional challenges in locating cutaway and reserve handles, and could expose more of those cables at the handle end than with a non-ringed harness. For some period of history some rig manufacturers have declined or delayed doing chest rings for some reasons, perhaps these reasons. So there are some rigs that can be bought new or used with hip rings but no chest rings. I assume the overall risk of handle mislocation caused or exacerbated by chest rings is small, or manufacturers would not be providing this option to their customers. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ncfitzge 0 #4 December 20, 2005 I just got an Icon and it only has Hip. But I have heard that Mirage unisyn is sweet.#148 Sonic Scrat "Have you ever kissed a rabbit between the eyes?" Woodpecker pulling out his pants pockets to the waitress Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #5 December 20, 2005 Hip n' Chest rings make the harness/container more flexible and more comfortable. Of course, you yourself then have to be felxible enough to take full advantage of it... so unless you're out there in freefall trying to do ala Dale Stuart stuff where you try to stuff your foot up your butt and put your left elbow in your right ear while doing back flips... err... I mean Freestyle... a fully articulated harness may not be necessary. Anyway, I have a Javelin with hip rings, but no chest rings. Why? I think the hip rings make the rig a bit more flexible and comfortable and I like it for doing RW. I skipped the chest rings to save a bit of money and also because I prefer the way the handles are without the chest rings, but that's just me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KNewman 0 #6 December 20, 2005 TB SLMAO and will be for days. Thanks for that post, it made my day Blue Skies and Stand-up Landings!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #7 December 20, 2005 I've owned and jumped harnesses with and without hip rings; imho the rings make the harness much more comfortable on the ground, in the plane, in freefall and under canopy. I wouldn't buy a new harness/container system without them. I talked with a former Relative Workshop employee about chest rings once and he told me that they a) aren't necessary and b) mess up the harness geometry. I know that a) is true for me; I don't know if b) is a fact or not. Other reasons to get articulation on the harness? Resale value and resale speed - you'll get more for the container when you sell it, and it will sell faster, if it has rings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #8 December 21, 2005 Quotea) aren't necessary and b) mess up the harness geometry. With chest rings it is easy to pull the MLW out of alignment and transfer the opening loads to the chest strap which is not designed to take that kind of load. See attachment. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #9 December 21, 2005 QuoteQuotea) aren't necessary and b) mess up the harness geometry. With chest rings it is easy to pull the MLW out of alignment and transfer the opening loads to the chest strap which is not designed to take that kind of load. See attachment. Sparky Sparky, good point on rigs with chest rings being more likely to "latterally load" the chest strap more so then a traditional harness without chest rings... however... given a chest strap made of Type-8 (rated at 4000lbs), do you really think it likely that a load will be imparted that will fail that? Okay, rigs with chest rings are probably more likely to have chest straps with Type-17 (rated at 2500lbs)... do you still think that could fail? ... or do you think its the attachement of the chest strap to the chest ring that will fail at some lesser latteral load and not the webbing used to make the chest stap itself, whether it be Type-8 or Type-17??? Given the types of webbing used to make the harness... baring any really really excessive wear due to gross miss-treatment / ignorance or some sort of improperly done repair or assembly... that the chances of actual harness failure are so remote as to be basically nill. In other words, even the hardest of openings would cause the canopy to blow-up, break the supension lines or break the risers OR strain the person wearing the rig through the harness long before the harness webbing itself broke??? Or am I missing something??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #10 December 21, 2005 I agree however I don't think it exceeds any design limits on the harness. Chest rings are pretty usless on most rigs, for most sized jumpre IMO, and they can contribute to problematic openings especialy on higher performance canopies. It's a case where some (hip rings) is good, while more (chest rings) is too mush most of the time.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #11 December 21, 2005 I agree with you and JP that there is very little chance of the failure with the lateral loading. But when you say Type 17 is 2,500 lbs. the friction adapter used with it is rated at 500 lbs. Ain't fashion a wonderful thing?SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #12 December 21, 2005 Quote...the friction adapter used with it is rated at 500 lbs. ...your Kung-Fu is better then mine... Ah! That's right... I knew I was forgetting something... ... QuoteAin't fashion a wonderful thing? ... ummm... says the man that would buy Orange Spectra for his canopy if they made it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #13 December 21, 2005 Quotebuy Orange Spectra for his canopy if they made it... Dacron maybe, Spectra never.SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #14 December 21, 2005 QuoteQuotebuy Orange Spectra for his canopy if they made it... Dacron maybe, Spectra never.Sparky Awh, Spectra is your Friend... ... just replace it every 5 to 7-hundred jumps... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #15 December 21, 2005 QuoteAwh, Spectra is your Friend To quote Mr. Booth "Its like bungee jumping with steel cables". SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CReWLL 0 #16 December 21, 2005 You have a drawing of a chest strap that is tight and one that's loose. Your sketch has nothing to do with rings. The chest strap hardware is rated at 500 lbs, makes no diference if you have a 4000 lb or 2500 lb chest strap. The design of the chsest strap / MLW joint is different on most harnesses, but a ring in that location will prevent any stitch point-loading that could ruin the integrity of the junction. Chest rings are a great design feature, for strength as well as comfort. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #17 December 21, 2005 QuoteCan anyone tell me the benefits of paying an extra $250 for hip & chest articulation on a container. Most (but not all) of the jumpers that I have talked to that have put a few thousand jumps on rigs with and without articulation, all else being equal, prefer the standard harness. For Great Deals on Gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #18 December 21, 2005 The first drawing shows a chest strap that is adjusted right and allows the load to be taken by the MLW. The other one shows a chest strap that is too tight and allows the load to be transferred to the chest strap. The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment. Chest straps made with Type 17 have hardware rated at 500 lbs. but with Type 7 or 8 hardware rated at 2,500 lbs. can be used. If a stitch point is designed and done right it is as strong or stronger then the webbing. jmo SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #19 December 22, 2005 QuoteThe chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment. Tell that to the family and friends of the young woman that fell out of her harness during deployment after forgetting to fasten her chest strap. There is such a thing as load distribution. There is a reason for having a chest strap and it is load bearing.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #20 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment. Tell that to the family and friends of the young woman that fell out of her harness during deployment after forgetting to fasten her chest strap. There is such a thing as load distribution. There is a reason for having a chest strap and it is load bearing. I think that would be called containment of load. Forgetting to fasten it does not make it load bearing. If it was load bearing why is the rest of the rig not be made of Type 17 webbing and 500 lb. hardware? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #21 December 22, 2005 QuotePost: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tell that to the family and friends of the young woman that fell out of her harness during deployment after forgetting to fasten her chest strap. There is such a thing as load distribution. There is a reason for having a chest strap and it is load bearing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that would be called containment of load. Forgetting for fasten it does not make it load bearing. If it was load bearing why is the rest of the rig not be made of Type 17 webbing and 500 lb. hardware? So, please explain to me what subtle difference there is between containment and bearing? How can a chest strap contain a body without carrying a load? Magic? A cardboard box is a container, yet they are rated for load bearing capacity. The reason the rest of the rig is not made of Ty 17 and 500# hardware is that they are built to the design load. The MLW needs to carry more load than the chest strap, so it is designed accordingly. Risers (Ty 17, BTW)are load bearing, yet are not designed or built the same as the MLW or leg straps, etc. BTW,your are right about one thing. Forgetting for (sic) fasten it does not make it load bearing. Forgetting to fasten it makes it non-load bearing, hence the young woman plunged to her death. Had she fastened it, it most likely would have bore enough load to have kept her in the harness.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 58 #22 December 22, 2005 Read about fatal chest strap (properly routed) failure here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=512835#512835 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #23 December 22, 2005 Alan, MJO, To settle this... how about we mod both your rigs with Type-8 webbing for the chest strap... and at the same time, remove the traditional, but wimpy friction adapter rated only to 500lbs and replace it with a B12 snap (see Para Gear #H406) and V-Ring (see Para Gear #H315)... Anyway, we were discussing the Pro's and Con's of Hip & Chest Rings... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #24 December 22, 2005 I have read it. In my opinion, it supports the notion that the chest strap is loaded during deployment.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #25 December 22, 2005 QuoteAnyway, we were discussing the Pro's and Con's of Hip & Chest Rings... We still are. Sparky implied that a con of chest rings is that they are subject to improper adjustment and by overtightening, during deployment the load is transferred from the MLW to the chest strap, which he maintains is not supposed to be load bearing. That is a dangerous statment to make. Someone believing him may decide not to invest in a fully articulated harness for the wrong reason........or may be complacent about their chest strap......or follow the advice of some rigger that says it is OK to use a rubber band instead of a functional and properly routed chest strap. What say you, oh keeper of the peace, is the chest strap load bearing during deployment or not? Oh, and rings can make it difficult to sneak up on people while wearing the rig, they can squeak when you walk or even move.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
