Mini rings and large risers combo - is this possible?

[Newbie 0]

I'm ordering my new rig - it gives the options of large/mini rings and also large/mini risers. I'm pretty sure my old rig had mini rings and large risers but is this a possible combination? I don;'t want mini risers because i'm 200lbs out the door, and i'm not a pro swooper so don't care about maximising efficiency through my swoop that much.

Is it possible to have this combination set up?

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[kingbunky 3]

if you aren't using mini risers, why would you want mini rings? just curious.

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

[DougH 270]

I wonder why also. If going with the bigger risers, why would you want to throw away the mechanical advantage of the larger rings?

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[sundevil777 93]

The large rings have the benefit of reduced cutaway pull force. The difference is significant:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=20716;

Apparently Mirage recommends a limit of 200 pounds for their rigs with mini risers:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1041580#1041580

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

[base_rigger 0]

Sure and that is the BASE standard: Type 8 with mini rings.

You know you have a problem when maggot is the voice of reason at the exit points

[azureriders 0]

YES

As for why, in my case, if you have a used container with a mini first ring on the harness, and you want large risers, I am way over 200 out the door, there you go, large risers with mini rings.

In my wifes case, who has no desire to ever swoop, she wanted the large risers because they outlast the mini risers. Once again a used container with mini first rings so once again, large risers with mini rings.

My rig was assembled the way I described, but by a previous owner so I bought it that way. My wifes tylon on the other hand, I called RI and they had the large risers with mini rings in stock and on the shelf.

[GravityGirl 0]

Quote

Sure and that is the BASE standard: Type 8 with mini rings.

Is that also the standard for dual canopy BASE rigs? Seems odd if it is.

The order of ease of cutaway was described to me as follows:

Easiest: Big rings - Big Risers
Next: Little rings - Little Risers
Next: Little rings - Big Risers

I would think that in a BASE situations, even if you were jumping something that allowed for two canopies, you would be down and dirty if you ever needed to use the cutaway system. You would want the fastest combination, no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[masterrigger1 2]

Bonnie,
Type VIII and Type XVII risers with the Mini rings will be the same pull force.
The measurements are the same for both types.

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[base_rigger 0]

The problem with type 17 is that are more susceptible to be built wrongly hence compromising safety a great deal in the BASE environment. There is more room for "error" in type 8 riser construction.

Also many BASE risers are integrity (the # 0 does not go trough both webbings and they look reversed.

As for the dual BASE canopy I guess you are referring to the sorcer that 1. it was never popular , 2. it is not built anymore.

I think you could order a sorcer with both large or small but the most I've seen have large rigs.

You know you have a problem when maggot is the voice of reason at the exit points

[riggerrob 558]

The first harness with mini rings (Swift 1981) had small rings sewn to the harness, but wide risers (Type 8 webbing, 1 23/32 inch wide, 4000 pounds). That was the standard for many years. Type 8 risers usually fail gradually as the webbing pulls/frays away from the grommets.
A few years later, narrow risers (Type 17, 1 inch wide, 2500 pounds) became fashionable with mini rings. Unfortunately, Type 17 risers became fashionable at the same time as a bunch of other new technologies: RW-7 harness rings, ZP fabric, zero stretch lines, tube stows, wing-loadings exceeding 1:1, etc. all of which contributed to hard openings and broke a few risers. It took a few years, but eventually (circa 1993) they figured out how to build narrow risers that would not break at the grommet or where they wrap around the second ring.

[GravityGirl 0]

Thanks for that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[JohnRich 4]

Yes, and many people select this combination.

The slight increased pull force from mini rings is negligible, while the chance of things going wrong with mini-risers is much greater, in my opinion. Large risers and small rings is a perfectly valid and safe combination.

Photo attached.

[Jib 0]

Do a search as it has been discussed before. He's a post to start with:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1301836#1301836

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[skydiverek 54]

Quote

Photo attached.

Although it is possible to have mini rings and Type 8 risers, this combination is not recommended. In the event of horseshoe malufinction, if your PC is still in pouch and you cutaway, the *wider* Type 8 webbing will not release so easily from *narrow* mini harness ring, when exposed to relative wind. Something like that was shown in Time Out commercial in the 'Breakaway' video (it is also on 'Ground Rush' tape). Billy Weber cuts away a horseshoe and ...nothing. He had to hit the risers with his hands several times in order to release them from harness rings . Same could probably happen with other low drag malufunctions, like streamer...

[udder 0]

Can you please explain that? Because it seems totally contradictory. The thickness of the risers will have no bearing on the operation of the three ring system, but the thicker risers should catch MORE air and hence release more easily in the case of a horseshoe?

The type 8 webbing may be wider but doesn't the actual three ring system and it's webbing remain the same diameter?

"In one way or the other, I'm a bad brother. Word to the motherf**ker." Eazy-E

[Froggy 0]

Quote

Can you please explain that?

I'd like to hear it, too. Just plain curiousity, because it does seem kinda illogical to me...

--------------
We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall...

[skydiverek 54]

Quote

Quote

Can you please explain that?

I'd like to hear it, too. Just plain curiousity, because it does seem kinda illogical to me...

Sure. Bacically, with wider risers, there is MORE material to flip thru/release from the harness ring. In addition, every riser material takes "set" when not flexed every 30 days or so. So, you end up with more material (and possibly stiff) that has to release from the SAME size harnes ring...

Ask Mark Schlatter. He shares this view.

"Mark Schlatter, Director US Academy of Parachute Rigging
Master Rigger
BS Aeronautical Technology, Purdue University, 1987
MS Industrial Training and Technology, Purdue University, 1992
DPRE 1986-1997
Private pilot
A&P
4,400+ jumps"

[Froggy 0]

Makes sense. But, assuming for the sake of argument that the assembly is flexed regularly, thus taking "setting" of the material out of the picture, do you think the amount of webbing in the ring is a real concern? I mean, sure, there is more material to pass through the ring, but would it practically affect the cutaway in real-life scenario, considering the load on the risers?

To me, the combination of mini rings and large risers seems rather odd (I wouldn't choose it myself), but I am just trying to understand how safe it is, since manufacturers are offering it as an option...

--------------
We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall...

[fcajump 153]

Quote

I wonder why also. If going with the bigger risers, why would you want to throw away the mechanical advantage of the larger rings?

The only time it seems to me to make sense is if you have a rig in hand with small base ring and do NOT want mini risers due to weight issues. However for what its worth, I have been jumping the redesigned Type-17 for several years with no issue (exit weight is... lets just say 254-lbs... ;-)

JW

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

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

The thickness of the risers will have no bearing on the operation of the three ring system

I don't understand how you can make that conclusion. The friction of the webbing pulling through the rings will be different, and it is not related to it becoming stiff over time. That friciton is part of the overall force required to pull the rings through each other. Wider webbing would be 'curved' more, so I would expect it to require more force to pull through the ring, even if the thickness and material itself is the same (is the thickness/mat'l really the same?).

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]

Quote

Yes, and many people select this combination.

The slight increased pull force from mini rings is negligible, while the chance of things going wrong with mini-risers is much greater, in my opinion. Large risers and small rings is a perfectly valid and safe combination.

Photo attached.

The graph of the pull force vs load that I posted earlier in this thread shows that the difference is definitely not negligible, and the old guy with the big beard agrees.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

with wider risers, there is MORE material to flip thru/release from the harness ring.

The edges of the riser at the bottom loop are folded inward on both sides where the ring passes through it, so that it is only half the width of the wide riser (but twice the thickness). And that half-width and double thickness doesn't seem much different from the same configuration with mini-risers.

See the attached photo of my rig in that configuration, with large risers and small rings.

From that photo, you can see that there is only a tiny amount of riser material touching the rings. And you can also see that the riser doesn't have to get dragged through the ring - it's mostly already all the way thru from the get-go. Most of the friction involved would only be metal ring on metal ring. And from attending Bill Booth's presentation on 3-ring design at a PIA convention, that's the way it's supposed to be, as I understand it.

I just don't see how this could be a dramatic or frequent problem. If it were, I don't think the manufacturers would offer the option in the first place.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The graph of the pull force vs load that I posted earlier in this thread shows that the difference is definitely not negligible, and the old guy with the big beard agrees.

I'm about 235 lbs. with gear. If I'm spinning at 3 G's, that's 705 lbs. The graph shows a pull force difference at that weight going from 2.5 lbs. for large rings up to 5 lbs. for mini-rings. I'm confident that I can handle a 5 lb. pull if I need it.

Booth may agree that there's a difference, but does he go so far as to say that mini-rings are unsafe? I doubt it...

Graph reference

[sundevil777 93]

Of course he doesn't say they're unsafe, but he does say that if they really cared about safety, they would use large 3 rings.

That force doesn't include friction in the housings, and there can be differences due to manufacturing tolerances. Also, I wonder if the shock of a hard opening might cause a little bit of the 'suck through' phenomena by the cable, where it gets bent by the loop and may not straighten completely when the shock/opening load is released. I don't know if this happens, but Mr. Booth has mentioned the 'suck through' more than once on this site.

Aerodyne went to the trouble of making their extended ring to reduce forces. I hope they did it for a reason besides just having something unique on their rig.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Of course he doesn't say they're unsafe, but he does say that if they really cared about safety, they would use large 3 rings.

I'm not sure you can attribute those words to Bill's mouth.

Quote

That force doesn't include friction in the housings, and there can be differences due to manufacturing tolerances. Also, I wonder if the shock of a hard opening might cause a little bit of the 'suck through' phenomena by the cable, where it gets bent by the loop...

All of those things are possibilities with any type of risers and rings, large, small and combinations thereof. And small risers are more prone to twist-up and "trap" the cutaway cable ends than large risers, so I hear. I don't think that mini-rings present any greater danger for those three things you mention, compared to large rings.