Beatnik 2 #76 April 6, 2010 QuoteBut all those definitions of "normal" fell out of fashion when UPT invented main riser covers with magnets. UPT never invented magnetic riser covers. Atair did and they have the patent for it. UPT was the first to use them AFAIK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,333 #77 April 6, 2010 Hi Sangi, QuoteI thought I think.. Some advice if I may: Try to really think before you type. Your reputation is at stake; and that is the truth. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #78 April 6, 2010 Quotewhen UPT invented main riser covers with magnets you are going to take some heat on that one! UPT did not invent them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 623 #79 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuotewhen UPT invented main riser covers with magnets you are going to take some heat on that one! UPT did not invent them. ...................................................................... While Atari may hold a vague patent on the use of magnets on parachutes, UPT was the first company to install magnets in PRODUCTION parachutes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #80 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotewhen UPT invented main riser covers with magnets you are going to take some heat on that one! UPT did not invent them. ...................................................................... While Atari may hold a vague patent on the use of magnets on parachutes, UPT was the first company to install magnets in PRODUCTION parachutes. Doesn't mean they invented them. No more back peddling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #81 April 7, 2010 but-but, i have a micron with magnets; does that mean the chicks wont line up anymore for "going on a wild ride" with me anymore!? “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #82 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotewhen UPT invented main riser covers with magnets you are going to take some heat on that one! UPT did not invent them. ...................................................................... While Atari may hold a vague patent on the use of magnets on parachutes, UPT was the first company to install magnets in PRODUCTION parachutes. sounds better. on the other hand, my 12 year old racer has (reasonably priced) factory installed magnetic riser covers. To the OP, if I were buying a new rig, I would want magnetic riser covers. I am assuming PD asked UPT for a solution to the tuck tab problem for a good reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surfbum5412 0 #83 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewhen UPT invented main riser covers with magnets you are going to take some heat on that one! UPT did not invent them. ...................................................................... While Atari may hold a vague patent on the use of magnets on parachutes, UPT was the first company to install magnets in PRODUCTION parachutes. Doesn't mean they invented them. No more back peddling. ha. Yes, you are correct in that they didn't "invent" them, but stop splitting hairs on subjects. You know what he's saying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #84 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewhen UPT invented main riser covers with magnets you are going to take some heat on that one! UPT did not invent them. ...................................................................... While Atari may hold a vague patent on the use of magnets on parachutes, UPT was the first company to install magnets in PRODUCTION parachutes. Doesn't mean they invented them. No more back peddling. ha. Yes, you are correct in that they didn't "invent" them, but stop splitting hairs on subjects. You know what he's saying. Meaningless post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surfbum5412 0 #85 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewhen UPT invented main riser covers with magnets you are going to take some heat on that one! UPT did not invent them. ...................................................................... While Atari may hold a vague patent on the use of magnets on parachutes, UPT was the first company to install magnets in PRODUCTION parachutes. Doesn't mean they invented them. No more back peddling. ha. Yes, you are correct in that they didn't "invent" them, but stop splitting hairs on subjects. You know what he's saying. Meaningless post. meaningless post Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #86 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewhen UPT invented main riser covers with magnets you are going to take some heat on that one! UPT did not invent them. ...................................................................... While Atari may hold a vague patent on the use of magnets on parachutes, UPT was the first company to install magnets in PRODUCTION parachutes. Doesn't mean they invented them. No more back peddling. ha. Yes, you are correct in that they didn't "invent" them, but stop splitting hairs on subjects. You know what he's saying. Meaningless post. meaningless post Yes, that is what I said. Thank you for agreeing with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linebckr83 3 #87 April 9, 2010 Quote As an engineer, I..... As an aerospace engineer myself I think you're slightly retarded. Do you know what your rsl does? All it does is pull a pin (or 2) right? Do you know the time difference between a pop top pc clearing a couple flaps vs. a vector/mirage pc clearing 4 flaps? Very little if any right? And what does a skyhook do, just pull a pin? Or does it bypass several steps of a normal reserve deployment? Quit trying to use your education as a pedestal. I'm just as educated as you in the same areas and what you said makes zero sense. No education needed for that conclusion, just common sense. On that subject, my brand new V3 just arrived today! "Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GaryP 0 #88 April 10, 2010 All this talk of milliseconds over Pop Tops Vs Vector Vs Skyhook means shit. If you are down so low that a quarter of a second means life or death then you deserve to die!! Show me the fatality stats that back up all this crap. Show me the many fatalities that would've been averted with a reserve deployment of a quarter second earlier. Skydiving.. a quarter sec at terminal = approx 55' so I reiterate that if you are down this low you can't go blaming your gear if you go in. In BASE - 55' means a lot - different story. g."Altitude is birthright to any individual who seeks it" . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bliston 0 #89 April 10, 2010 You are missing of a critical point point here, and the guy that thinks his Racer will beat a Vector w/ a skyhook (from a mostly inflated main canopy cutaway) is just plain wrong. I mean think about it, what's going to pull the reserve out faster, a 30+ inch reserve pilot chute that needs to find air, inflate, and accelerate the length of the bridle? or an already inflated 100+ square foot main? One of the main advantage of the Skyhook is that it drastically reduces some of the downside of a standard RSL. This is important because many folks that refuse to use a standard RSL will opt for a Skyhook - so the comparison really should be between a non-RSL equipped rigs and skyhook equipped rigs. For example, cutting away from an aggressive spinning mal with a standard RSL has the potential of creating a reserve bridle entanglement and has the high likelihood of having the reserve deploy asymmetrically (because of the jumper not being symmetrical in the harness) - the result, reserve line twists or worse. For this reason, you'll see a lot of folks jumping Velocities and other high performance canopies that won't ever jump a regular RSL, but choose to use skyhook equipped rigs. Also, the freebag and reserve pilot chute also usually stay connected to the main after a chop, which is nice. Sometimes they are hard to spot by themselves and end up costing you $265 if you can't find them. A person real life experience with the skyhook is that a few years ago I had a spinning mal and was on my back under a Stiletto 107 and had a skyhook assisted reserve deployment that was perfectly strait, symmetrical, and fast. I doubt the reserve deployment would have been so clean or even safe with a standard RSL. If you look at the UPT video and this Jumpshack video: http://www.jumpshack.com/videos/speedbag_cutaway.wmv you'll see that the RSL Racer deployment takes about two second to get the reserve out of the freebag (and about 4.5 or 5 seconds to see a fully open reserve). With the UPT video, you can see the reserve out of the bag in about 1/2 a second and a fully inflated reserve is about two seconds - from the frame by frame deployment from a spinning mal. No comparison. To be fair, one should just look at the time it takes to get the reserve out of the free-bag. At that point, how the reserve is packed determined the speed. I know if I was doing a bunch of test jumps that were intended to simply test the effectiveness of the skyhook (particularly with high speed mals) I'd be rolling the nose a bit to save my back and neck. As for the question of "does it matter" - usually... no. However, sometimes having a reserve out faster means that you have time to get back to the main landing area instead of landing off, or maybe have time to turn into the wind before landing your reserve (a canopy that most people aren't used to landing), or even have time to make it back to the main area, do some practice flares, and then set up into the wind. I also have had two people I know go in because their reserves weren't fully inflated when they hit the ground. Should they have been that low? of course not, but it doesn't change the fact the a skyhook would like have saved both of them. Both had thousands of jumps, we current and just had a few things in a row go wrong. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that rigs without skyhook RSL are unsafe. I just felt that some of the points presented in this thread were incorrect and merited a response. BenMass Defiance 4-wayFS website sticks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #90 April 10, 2010 Quote As an engineer, I understand that the best solution to a problem is the least complex while still getting the job done. Still in school, huh? Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linebckr83 3 #91 April 10, 2010 Quote Quote As an engineer, I understand that the best solution to a problem is the least complex while still getting the job done. Still in school, huh? Wouldn't it be awesome if it always worked that way!"Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #92 April 11, 2010 Quote Quote As an engineer, I understand that the best solution to a problem is the least complex while still getting the job done. Still in school, huh? In school or not, that statement is correct. Unfortunately some engineers like to make things more complex than they need to be, like Rube Goldberg. Think about reefing systems that were on canopies to slow the opening compared to the slider. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #93 April 13, 2010 QuoteIn school or not, that statement is correct. I disagree. Calling a solution the "best" because it's the least complex is naive. It's not the "best" solution in all cases.... it's only the "least complex" solution. Is the least complex car the safest? Crumple zones, air bags, seat belts... all that adds complexity. Is it the "best" for the driver, the manufacturer, or the mechanic? "Best" changes depending on the angle you look t it. Often, in real world engineering, the solution that's "best" is the one that provides the "best balance" of cost, complexity, usability, and maintainability.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #94 April 14, 2010 Quote Is the least complex car the safest? Crumple zones, air bags, seat belts... all that adds complexity. Is it the "best" for the driver, the manufacturer, or the mechanic? "Best" changes depending on the angle you look t it. ??? Containers do not have anything to do with cars.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linebckr83 3 #95 April 14, 2010 Ever heard of an analogy? Simplest does not always equal best. In cars or containers. "Are you coming to the party? Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!" Flying Hellfish #828 Dudist #52 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #96 April 14, 2010 I understand that the best solution to a problem is the least complex while still getting the job done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aussiechick 0 #97 April 14, 2010 Quote Quote Is the least complex car the safest? Crumple zones, air bags, seat belts... all that adds complexity. Is it the "best" for the driver, the manufacturer, or the mechanic? "Best" changes depending on the angle you look t it. Quote ??? Containers do not have anything to do with cars.... Rubbish they don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites