aerodyne 3 rings

[riggerrob 558]

My experience has been that clean, dry cables in clean dry housings have less than 5 pounds of friction, while dry housings can easy produce 30 pounds of friction.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Sure they do. The smaller the rings, the larger the forces.

The smaller the rings the larger the forces with or without line twist. The problems people were having chopping with line twist were if the twists extend down to the risers the twisted risers trapped the cable in the channel. This only happened on "mini risers" made of Type 17, and was compounded by soft housings. It was not a problem on Type 8 risers.

Quote

is a chart on 3-ring loads and pull forces that I compiled from information available on the RWS and Aerodyne websites

This is easier to read. See Attachment.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[RiggerLee 61]

I’m afraid you’re all missing the real point of elongating the second ring. The biggest problem with mini rings, and they are far inferior to regular three rings, is there size. The leavers are substantially shorter. The internal forces are much higher and they are absorbed by smaller, some times lighter weight tapes. I’ve seen them fail and all of the failures I observed happened when the tape on the small ring broke. Extending that first leaver reduces those forces making the whole system much more forgiving.
I’d like to think that Aerodyne, in their advertising, is just trying to put this in terms the “average” jumper can understand. The truth is that most jumpers are not very well informed as to how their gear actually works. But what ever their reasoning I’d have too say that their three ring design constitutes the biggest step forward I’ve seen in years. I was very disappointed when it was not better received. I just wish I could have been there to watch Booths face turn green with envy, white loop? Is that the best he could come up with?

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[mjosparky 3]

It’s one more attempt to gain market share by changing one component of a proven system. I fail to see any "big step" in any direction.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[proswooper 2]

The difference is not drastic but i have many cutaways on both Aerodyne and regular riings (intentional and actual mals). There is a noticable difference. If you were a 100lb girl or boy it is a very pleasant difference and far more noticable. it is especially noticable at higher loadings and in a hard turn.

the system is not supposed to replace or revolutionize the current system but to add a little extra to a rig design setting it apart from the many different designs out there.

[Mark4 0]

It this another potential compatibility issue?

I was using miniforce risers on my Vortex II but I have just taken them off. During packing one of the risers turned over and in this configuration the riser would not release (see pics below).

Now could this happen in the air? I think unlikely but in a sport where 'shit happens', I'm not going to take the risk. Possibly a diving opening could unload the riser enough for this to occur.

I tried to replicate this with a standard round ring. It was much more difficult to turn over the riser due to the shorter distance between the rings and even if you do the rings still release in this position.

I compared my Vortex II (and my Odyssey) to my friend's I_con and I noticed the inside diameter of the large ring on the I_con is greater than on both the Vortex II and Odyssey. In other words Aerodyne appear to have made the big ring bigger.

I'm curious to what some of you riggers think. I have yet had a chance to discuss it with my locals.

Edited due to the word I_con disappearing hence the _ in it now!!

[riggerrob 558]

That "flip through" is similar to the "flip through" that has broken a few tandem risers.
If packers are too lazy to straighten risers before packing, TIs are too lazy to inspect gear before donning it and no-one keeps an eye out during the walk to the plane or the airplane ride, then you are guarranteed to break a riser.
"Flip throughs" are far less likely to happen on solo harnesses because the harness ring can swing enough to prevent flip throughs.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

I compared my Vortex II (and my Odyssey) to my friend's I_con and I noticed the inside diameter of the large ring on the I_con is greater than on both the Vortex II and Odyssey. In other words Aerodyne appear to have made the big ring bigger.

How much bigger? Do you have any good tools measure it, or can you only approximate?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 93]

Even if the normal activation force for a mini ring system should present no problem for a jumper, I think it is still enough higher than the std system to be a disadvantage. I have found my 2 cutaways on std 3 ring systems to be effortless, and I like it that way. I think there is great value in having lower pull forces, but obviously most do not agree.

Perhaps if everyone saw pictures of what the degree of cable 'suck through' was for different loads, that would be scary enough to make some consider if mini rings are worth being fashionable.

I would bet that most jumpers are unaware of the 'suck through' that occurs, thinking that extra pull force is just due to additional frictional load on what they assume will be always be a straight cable.

The idea of having to pull/extract the cable through/past such a 'suck through' bend is not comforting to me.

edit - I think the Aerodyne rings are not catching on because they are ugly. Sure, it shouldn't matter, but it does. They have bad form.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[fcajump 153]

Quote

It this another potential compatibility issue?

I was using miniforce risers on my Vortex II but I have just taken them off. During packing one of the risers turned over and in this configuration the riser would not release (see pics below).

Now could this happen in the air? I think unlikely but in a sport where 'shit happens', I'm not going to take the risk. Possibly a diving opening could unload the riser enough for this to occur.

I tried to replicate this with a standard round ring. It was much more difficult to turn over the riser due to the shorter distance between the rings and even if you do the rings still release in this position.

I compared my Vortex II (and my Odyssey) to my friend's I_con and I noticed the inside diameter of the large ring on the I_con is greater than on both the Vortex II and Odyssey. In other words Aerodyne appear to have made the big ring bigger.

I'm curious to what some of you riggers think. I have yet had a chance to discuss it with my locals.

Edited due to the word I_con disappearing hence the _ in it now!!

I have had this occur when picking up my canopy (standard large rings on Vector II w/ factory risers).

I would suggest that it can happen on ANY rig with ANY size/type ring. This can be caught when:
Packing,
Before putting it on
After putting it on (self-gear check)
Pre-boarding pin^H^H^H gear check
Pre-exit gear check

(not directed at you specifically as you did catch it, but ...)

PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!!! To your own rig, and to the rigs around you. I am constantly checking my gear and scanning rigs around me. Yea, I might miss something, but its harder for a problem to go unnoticed when there are 20 pairs of eyes scanning around.

Lets be careful out there!

PS - and you young'ins out there... If you see something strange on my rig, ASK!! (the earlier, the better) We'll check it together and if all is well, we'll discuss it in depth once we are back on the ground... but maybe you're seeing something that IS wrong. And I for one want to hear about it!

Blue ones,
Jim

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[proswooper 2]

Just so you know this is not unique to miniforce risers. you can acheive the same flip through with any risers if you try. especially tandems.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Just so you know this is not unique to miniforce risers. you can acheive the same flip through with any risers if you try. especially tandems.

I seem to remember hearing something about problems due to the miniforce 2nd ring design and the riser becoming twisted. Something along the lines of creating a no-pull scenerio due to the shape of the "ring."

Whats the story on that? True, not true, possible but not likely?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jheadley 0]

I'm reading the patent on the 3 ring release and found this section in it

"It should be further noted that while circular rings are used in the embodiment described here in detail, other geometric shapes or rectangles of flat bars of different circumference could be used"

If anyone's interested in reading it, it's patent # 4337913

[Mark4 0]

No I didn't actually measure them but side by side they were visably different.

I'll measure this weekend and report back.

[Mark4 0]

Thanks, I have no experience with tandem gear, but sounds like this is not unique to the mini-force risers.

Also interesting that if it did open in this configuration it would probably break... I hadn't thought of that.

However I think I'll now stick with the risers designed for the rig.

[proswooper 2]

A no pull scenario?

not sure i follow

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

A no pull scenario?

not sure i follow

Sorry, I misspoke, a no cutaway scenerio, where the rings would lock against each other and would not release.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ldskydiver 0]

Mark4 The phenomena you described and supplied pics for
happened several times on my Javelin while placing/removing unpacked from gear bag. I have never had this problem with my Icon although I have only put it in gear bag unpacked maybe 10 times. Another reason for a gear check before use.