Analyze This ...

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I might tend to agree with Sid - this is sloppy in the extreme, but it would likely have slipped off.

......................................................................

Not defending the original rigger, but I have seen WAAAAAAY sloppier than this.

So, this is not extremely sloppy because others are extremely sloppier?

Sure, we've probably all seen worse. But I still consider this extremely sloppy.

[irishrigger 31]

yes i can also see that it goes through the cutter.
but it be interesting to find out if the loop would be cut in that situation.
normally the loop would go through the middle of the cutter,in this case with the loop being so tight against the very inside edge of it.the cutter might not be able to cut the loop cleanly?
be interesting to find out what airtec would say about this.
also other people opinion if the loop would be cut.
rodger

[davelepka 4]

Quote

So, this is not extremely sloppy because others are extremely sloppier?

Sure, we've probably all seen worse. But I still consider this extremely sloppy.

Call it what you will, but that's not a $50 pack job. Not by a mile.

I wonder what the owner of the rig thought about it?

[NickDG 23]

If your cutter in under a top flap or on the bottom of the container (like on a Racer or Reflex) take a penlight and LOOK down into the grommet(s).

In most cases, and very likely in this one, you would have seen something amiss . . .

NickD

[riggerpaul 1]

OP said this was a Javelin.

Cutter is under the bag, invisible from the outside.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

Is the closing loop wrapped around the cutter too? It's hard to tell.

Frankly, I've found much worse than this. This would probably work. I've found things that wouldn't.

Unfortunately, I too have found reserve lines similary snagged on the cutter on rigs where the cutter is in the bottom of the reserve pack tray, rather then on the first flap. In no way does it make it okay, but I can understand how this happens when putting the reserve / freebag into the container and is something I personally check and double check to make sure I haven't done when packing a rig configured like that (e.b. Javelin)

Also, while I haven't personally found one, I've also heard of other riggers finding rigs with the closing loop throuh the cutter and half hitched around the cutter. This one is more of a mystery to me... "how'd they do that?" I've heard speculation of it being a "could happen" when using a tension device or some "odd" way of packing a rig such as a Racer or maybe a really sloppy way of shortening a too long reserve closing loop...

[pchapman 261]

Quote

finding rigs with the closing loop throuh the cutter and half hitched around the cutter. This one is more of a mystery to me... "how'd they do that?"

You know, I could see it "just happening": Say the bag went in neatly and the closing loop is pulled up through the bag. If there's some movement of the bag while the bag is being worked into corners or whatever, slack could be created in the closing loop (before any flaps are temp pinned) and, bending off to one side, it catches on the end of the cutter on the backpad.

Yes the significant shortening should be noticed when trying to close the rig, but it is possible the loop was long to begin with and the rig was open when given to the rigger.

Technically the rigger may have followed every step in the manual, and the rig's design can be faulted for allowing a snag point. But in practice a rigger must of course confirm that everything is staying in the place it is intended to be.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

Not a rigger...... maybe the closing loop after routed through (from the bottom) the closing loop looped back under the cutter. So when closing the pack job put tension on the closing loop and twisted it 180 deg??? That is the only thing that i can think of that would make sence. If the rigger threaded it from the top, then i would think he would just be lazy.

So, you are suggesting that this rigger was NOT lazy?

I've seen cutters with a loop around them. I haven't seen one that looks like this.

Doesn't mean it cannot happen. I just find it unlikely.

Not at all.....I was just saying that if he threaded it that way then he was lazy for that part. But the lines look like shit all together, he is lazy as shit for such a shity pack job. I was just responding to your post about the cutter being threaded that way.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[980 0]

Quote

OP said this was a Javelin.

Cutter is under the bag, invisible from the outside.

actually I have found that if you use the length of closing loop suggested by Sunpath, that your grommets will be stacked such that you can see the Cypres cutter most of the time

most of the time I get Javelins though, they come with closing loops way longer than Sunpath reccommends

This makes me wonder what the length of that closing loop in the pic was?

[riggerpaul 1]

As long as we're on the subject, how and when do you measure the loop for a Javelin?

The manual says:

Suggested loop length for cypres closing after setting & stretching to be 2 1/8”

Do you measure from the knot or from the disk? Or do you measure from the grommet after the loop is installed in the rig?

When I record closing loop lengths in my log, I always measure from the disk. Different rigs may have different routing (for instance Vector with the 2 grommets), and I like to have a common technique for all. I measure from the disk so that when I am making a new loop, I can measure without having to go to the container to check.

I'd love to see a common technique used by the different manufacturers so that there would be no ambiguity. It doesn't help much to have the mfg tell you the length if you don't know how they measured it.

[980 0]

agreed on the common method

I looked in a few of the Javelin manuals I have and they do not specify, but I believe you can deduce from the phrase 'after setting and stretching' that they mean from the loop to the disk.

The only other logical measurement is to the knot and that would be way too short.