anti twist risers?

[ruthers 0]

Has any manufacturer ever tried to make risers which could prevent the brakes locking due to line twists?

I'm thinking in terms of a system like this: longer risers, with built in hard housings for the brake lines. The long risers (how long would be necessary to ensure that,say 90% of cases of line twists would be on the risers (where the hard housings would keep the brakes running freely) and not on the lines (where the twists lock the brakes and result in loss of control of the canopy)?) would ensure that the twists happen on the risers and not the lines.

The brake set cateye and toggle stowage would need to be down at the bottom of the riser, closer to the 3 ring.

Of course, a longer lower control line would be necessary to account for the lower installation of the brake set loop and toggle stowage.

[flashvortx 0]

Yeah, Mirage sells them at least in their G4. They call them "Armored Risers." They just put the same steel cable housing that is used for reserve cables up in the risers.

http://www.miragesys.com/products/mirage-g4/armored-risers/

[pchapman 261]

Ah, but he's talking about having, say, 4 ft long risers.
Since one's riser attachment are closer together than the span of the canopy, when lines twist when under tension, they'll tend to be much closer to the jumper than the canopy. (That's just one common scenario, and twists occur for different reasons in different locations.)

So if your brake lines (not cutaway cables) went through housings, they would be protected and one could theoretically steer the canopy despite twists, if they occurred lower down.

It's a bizarre idea, not likely to be accepted in practice, but a reasonable thought experiment.

[flashvortx 0]

Ohhhh yeah boy did I misread that

[NWPoul 1]

Actually you can apply some toggle input even when you have some linetwist:)

Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

[Floflo 0]

Of course you can, it's just a very bad idea...
If the friction is strong enough, the brake might not come back up; You just had line twists you could get rid of, and now you have line twists under a spinning canopy.

[ruthers 0]

Quote

Of course you can, it's just a very bad idea...
If the friction is strong enough, the brake might not come back up; You just had line twists you could get rid of, and now you have line twists under a spinning canopy.

That's why I proposed the idea. I guy on the paragliding forum has been trying it out for a couple of years, slightly different system but same principle.

I also thought that one problem might be that with toggles normally stowed with the "point" (which is set into the brake set eye on the line to give deployment brake setting) upwards, the anti twist housing would only start at best a toggle length above the 3 rings (and might still get twisted up. But if the point of the toggle faced downwards, the housing could go closer to the 3 ring.

[councilman24 36]

But paragliders don't have to fit in a skydiving rig and deploy at terminal.

Where do you stop? As soon as the steering lines are bare they can twist with the suspension lines. Considering there is barely room for toggles in some of these little rigs I don't know where your going to put several feet of flexible but not coilable housing.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[Floflo 0]

And so what?
Skydivers would never ever put looks before safety, would they?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

And so what?
Skydivers would never ever put looks before safety, would they?

Never! Especially swoopers!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jumpsalot-2 2]

Consider stowing these long risers in your pack tray.....

Worst case, face to face with another canopy when you have line twist.....reach above twist, if possible, grab steering lines, and pull to turn.

Life is short ... jump often.

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

guy on the paragliding forum has been trying it out for a couple of years,

I am curious to see that. I had a similar idea years ago, but after flying a bunch of acro and finding out that if you get more than 2 or three riser-twists you're f*$(#$ anyway, I didn't pursue it. (Any less than that and you can still use the brakes a little, the trick is to not get into twists even when messing up flips and twists)

Also, in PG I always want shorter risers and lower hang points, My idea involved a brake line housing that was independent of the risers and toggles but "floated" on the brake lines until they were entrapped by twists.

-SPACE-

[Calvin19 0]

While testing out deployable paragliders, I toyed with a cool "anti-roll" riser equalizer that prevented significant "weight shift" in a seated harness. (In the photo it connects the top of the risers, mine involved a releasable cross-brace on the harness) I obviously did not invent this kind of harness/riser system, but It turned out to be moot because deploying a seated harness system is NASTY. (but do-able)

-SPACE-

[pchapman 261]

Quote

(In the photo it connects the top of the risers,

Photo?

As you'll know, having risers come together to one point is perfect for a symmetrical opening - can't have one riser pulled down vs. the other to cause mals or off heading openings. Yet it also provides zero resistance to line twists. So you get the best of one world, the worst of another....

An interesting design issue.

[ruthers 0]

what was the nastiness of the seated harness? Do you mean in terms of getting the deployment bag out, up and away cleanly, or nasty in terms of forces on the body?

[stayhigh 2]

When do you ever pop the toggles out when kicking out of line twist????
Do you use em to flair the diving canopy back over your head??.
I don't see how this housing would be useful.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

Quote

(In the photo it connects the top of the risers,

Photo?

As you'll know, having risers come together to one point is perfect for a symmetrical opening - can't have one riser pulled down vs. the other to cause mals or off heading openings. Yet it also provides zero resistance to line twists. So you get the best of one world, the worst of another....

An interesting design issue.

sorry, i got the idea from this rescue parachute I use for acro flying. (picture should be there now)

I made the same conclusions.

-SPACE-

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

what was the nastiness of the seated harness? Do you mean in terms of getting the deployment bag out, up and away cleanly, or nasty in terms of forces on the body?

deployment is easy, the forces on the body are nasty. I got around it, but a transfer works WAY better.

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

deployment is easy, the forces on the body are nasty. I got around it, but a transfer works WAY better.

I am assuming the issues that you have run into are similar to those of chest mount deployments and the body folding. I have never had a problem with either on my design. Proper staging will reduce the forces to bearable levels even if the attachment points are lower down on a harness.

[Calvin19 0]

Quote

Quote

deployment is easy, the forces on the body are nasty. I got around it, but a transfer works WAY better.

I am assuming the issues that you have run into are similar to those of chest mount deployments and the body folding. I have never had a problem with either on my design. Proper staging will reduce the forces to bearable levels even if the attachment points are lower down on a harness.

I like my harnesses really balanced, very low hang points. But you are correct, if you get the deployment speeds down it it no big deal.

-SPACE-

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

deployment is easy, the forces on the body are nasty. I got around it, but a transfer works WAY better.

I am assuming the issues that you have run into are similar to those of chest mount deployments and the body folding. I have never had a problem with either on my design. Proper staging will reduce the forces to bearable levels even if the attachment points are lower down on a harness.

I like my harnesses really balanced, very low hang points. But you are correct, if you get the deployment speeds down it it no big deal.

I can understand low hang points to drag reduction. A few inches above the hips or around the stomach area. The deployment speeds have some factor in it but if the design is staged correctly to spread out the deployment forces, the deployment speeds become less of an issue. The system I designed, built, tested and continuing to develop, I can launch at any speed I have thrown at it out of a plane or taken it to and not create any damage to the glider itself. At least so far no damage has been done, not even a line breaking.

[hackish 8]

It took me a couple of chops of my bad tempered Diablo to understand that the canopy won't just turn independant of it's suspended weight. The focus should be on having the canopy fly straight so you can untwist the lines. Provoking the canopy into turning will merely swing you with the line twists out with the g-forces, throwing away altitude at the same time.

As a result I think the idea of anti-twist risers is a no-go. There are risers with hard shells to stop the cutaway cables from becoming locked inside but that's a different thing.

-Michael