Riser and 3 ring sizes (Mini vs. Large)

[Patterson 0]

Ugh...I have been searching for 2 days now for some updated information concerning the mini and large three rings and mini and large risers. Most of the articles are from early 2000 and the late 90s.

Anyway, I have finally saved enough money to purchase a complete Javelin Odyssey rig package.

The two big factors in my mind are safety and compatibility. I have read the articles that say it takes more force to cutaway when using a mini ring system. Some of the really old articles I read said it was EXTREMELY hard to pull with enough force to cutaway on a mini ring system, but then I see other articles that are dated a little later that say that issue was addressed and somewhat fixed. Still, others say it has a lot to do with your exit weight (mine being 190 lbs), and whether or not you are experiencing a malfunction that causes you to spin.

For the riser size I have seen people with a lot of opinions, but none raise any red flags concerning safety in my mind. From what I understand the small risers are more fashionable and wear a little faster, but as long as they are inspected and taken care of they are not any less safe (correct me if I'm wrong). I have read about the slider sometimes moving around but that was remedied through slider blocks (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, when considering what combination to purchase I have seen articles discussing compatibility with other canopies/containers. This is one part I could use some clarification on. Some people state to buy X over Y because they are the most common and will be compatible elsewhere (again, these are old threads...so I don't know what to think).

Right now I am leaning towards large rings and mini risers. Can anyone give me more information on the pros and cons of the different types? Any advice is very much appreciated.

[RiggerLee 61]

From an engineering point of view, mini risers, or more importantly mini rings, suck. It was just fundamentally a bad idea. There were problems with hard opening causing elongation of the grommet hole. Some of them broke. More importantly the internal forces are too high. There is just not enough mechanical advantage in the length of the rings. I've seen risers fail by breaking the tape of the small ring. It does transfer more load to the white loop that could contribute to a hard pull. A greater issue is if you get any external load on that loop from an out side source like the housing, but we've gotten smarter about that. One solution that lets you be cool and have your one inch risers is the aerodyne ring. Their mini force risers or what every they call the things. It substantially reduces the internal forces in the system. Note that they are a little longer and are not necessarily compatible with all rigs with out a little work.

If you get big rings and big riser you wont go wrong. If you get big rings you can always put mini ring risers on then, no problem, you just wont look as cool.

It's really just a question of form vs. function. What's more important to you? Looking cool or functionality?

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[Patterson 0]

Thank you so much! I definitely do not want to sacrifice safety/functionality for looking cool. I was unaware that the Aerodyne solution was the only real progress made with reducing the extra load on the cutaway process. The more I read the more I do not think mini rings are a good idea. Again, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question.

[councilman24 36]

I agree with everything Lee said. But.....
The reason all the articles are old is that it's become a non-issue. Most of the issues have been resolved. If you not really big, pick a weight maybe 170 or 180, you'd be fine with small rings and risers. If you've sat on you ass too much like me then I'd stick with full size. I haven't heard of a riser breaking in a long time or cutaway issues that aren't related to twisted risers. This.is more an issue.with one inch risers but is solved with hard cable end housings on the risers.

I say unless.you big get what you want and don't worry. Or be an old conservative fat. fart like me and get big rings and type 8 risers. Or split the difference like I did and get small stainless rings and type 8 risers.

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

[JeffCa 0]

I have an exit weight of maybe 180 lbs. When I bought my rig, I tried to get large risers and large rings. The company I was dealing with has been an advocate of large rings, but they advised me that for somebody of my size, large rings would be "overkill". They only recommended them for the heavyweights among us.

Then when I took this advice and relayed it to a major heavyweight at my DZ (280 lbs exit weight), one of our riggers said that even for him, it's a non-issue, and he could go with small rings. So there seems to be some confusion and/or differing opinions out there.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[Patterson 0]

Jeffca, have you ever had to cutaway with the small rings? How was it? Did you have any problems? Did it require a lot of force to pull the cutaway?

[RiggerLee 61]

Every thing said here is true but you may be blowing some of it out of proportion. Cutting away under normal circumstances is not a problem with any system. If it were they would not be in use. Problems only arise in extreme circumstances. With extremely hard openings. With twisted risers. With out of spec components. It's not till things go wrong that it gets interesting. The problem is you're asking people that have spent there lives studying those cases. It doesn't attract our attention till a riser breaks on a line dump. Or a cable kinks and gets sucked through the grommet on a hard opening. Or a ring bends. Or some one goes in with twisted risers.

Mini risers work. We've all jumped them. We've all cut away with them. What I'm saying is this. The tolerances are at the limit of manufacturing. The mechanical ratio is not there. The reinforcement that is added to protect the grommet hole only reduces the mechanical advantage. It is fundamentally an inferior design. The advantages are. It's easier to pull the slider behind your head and it looks cooler. And in theory it has a little less drag. Some people even fold them in half to try to make them even more aerodynamic, but that's just anal. But it's the cool thing that really sold people and made mini risers the standard design for the industry. Let's face it. We sell cool. That's what skydiving is. The people that care about safety play tennis or go bowling.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[sundevil777 93]

Have you already found this in earlier threads - comparison of forces, I believe that it was provided by UPT (previously called RWS)?

I don't know if it is for only one side or both together.

I am staying old school and use big rings and risers. Some say that mini risers serve a useful purpose of limiting opening shock forces. I can appreciate that, but would like it to be purposely engineered/designed for that purpose to avoid some of the downsides of having that function as an afterthought.

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

[JeffCa 0]

Patterson

Jeffca, have you ever had to cutaway with the small rings? How was it? Did you have any problems? Did it require a lot of force to pull the cutaway?

I'm too good at packing to have ever used the cutaway handle.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[Irm1u 0]

JeffCa

I'm too good at packing to have ever used the cutaway handle.

Hard to tell if you're serious or not, but that attitude might get you injured or even killed some day!
A great amount of reserve rides dont have anything to do with packing.

[JeffCa 0]

Irm1u

***
I'm too good at packing to have ever used the cutaway handle.

Hard to tell if you're serious or not, but that attitude might get you injured or even killed some day!

As a show of confidence, I shall super-glue my cutaway handle to the velcro on the harness webbing.



(Anybody who knows me, not that there are many on here, would know that I despise packing and have struggled with it greatly. But no reserve rides yet!)

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I shall super-glue my cutaway handle to the velcro on the harness webbing.

You use glue? Pfft. I use rivets.

[riggerrob 558]

Andy9o8

Quote

I shall super-glue my cutaway handle to the velcro on the harness webbing.

You use glue? Pfft. I use rivets.

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

Rivets?
Only sissies use rivets!
Real men weld their 3-Rings together.
Hah!
Hah!

[riggerrob 558]

Backing councilman ....

The industry developed solutions 20 years ago.

During the 1993 Parachute Industry Association Symposium, we were introduced to reinforced mini-risers. They were made of 1 inch wide Type 17 webbing with an extra layer of Type 3 tape below the confluence wrap. That extra layer of tape solved the problem of risers breaking where they wrapped around the harness ring.

In 1998, 3-Ring Incorporated published standards for sewing 3-Ring risers.

Since then the incidence of broken risers has decreased dramatically.

[RiggerLee 61]

It would be more appropriate to say that the change from the RW-7 to the RW-8 fixed the problem of the riser being cut where it wrapped around the harness ring.

The Type 3 reduced the elongation of the grommet hole but it also increased the bulk where the webbing folded inwards and decreased the mechanical advantage of the middle ring.

Booths specs did help to standardize the production but the tolerances are still very tight.

And I think the biggest thing has been that we've gotten better at packing. learning how to stow micro line and softer opening canopies have, in my opinion, done more then any thing else to stop riser failure.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 558]

Yes, Riggerlee, I agree with you.

Many years ago, Sandy Reid described it as a "perfect storm." A whole bunch of new canopy technologies were introduced around 1990. The new canopy technologies included: Zero porosity fabric, zero stretch suspension lines, RW-7 Rings, etc. Wing-loadings started to exceed 1 pound per square foot and new canopies become less forgiving of sloppy packing, loose rubber bands, deploying one shoulder low, etc.
Tandem was invented in 1983.
People started breaking risers.

Sandy lamented that canopy manufacturers introduced problems, but harness manufacturers were forced to invent new solutions.

Thin RW-7 rings were quietly replaced by RW-8 rings. RW-8 rings are the same thickness as RW-0, RW-1 rings and the mini-rings that Parachutes de France had been making for the previous decade. What is the oldest RW-8 ring you have seen?

[mark 102]

riggerrob

During the 1993 Parachute Industry Association Symposium, we were introduced to reinforced mini-risers. They were made of 1 inch wide Type 17 webbing with an extra layer of Type 3 tape below the confluence wrap. That extra layer of tape solved the problem of risers breaking where they wrapped around the harness ring.

In 1998, 3-Ring Incorporated published standards for sewing 3-Ring risers.

Since then the incidence of broken risers has decreased dramatically.

Correlation is not causation. Jump Shack is still making risers without the Type-3 tape, and we do not hear of their risers being particularly susceptible to breaking.

Mark

[RiggerLee 61]

Hmmm My first jav was built in like 91. It wasn't long after that that we started to get rw-8's in. I don't think the RW-7 thing lasted more then a couple of years total. People figured out that they were a bad idea real quick.

Actually I just looked. I've got a RW-7 here stamped 93 so they were in production at least that long.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[fcajump 153]

I have had discussions with one individual who works at a para mfg who leaves out the reinforcing tape on his own risers due to this 'perfect storm'.

If the canopy doesn't give, and the lines don't stretch and the links don't give, then you've got two things that take the load for a hard openning... the harness (something we don't want failing) or the jumper (which can be seriously injured if it takes all the load).

He figured that a riser acting as a last line of defense 'weak-link' might just save his neck (literally).

Not that a riser fail would be a good thing, but when you have an overload of stresses, where do you want the load to go?

J

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

[Quagmirian 40]

And then we have the whole issue of RSLs. The BPA actually has banned the use of RSLs with unreinforced risers. So what do you do in that situation?

[riggerrob 558]

Quagmirian

And then we have the whole issue of RSLs. The BPA actually has banned the use of RSLs with unreinforced risers. So what do you do in that situation?

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

BPA was responding to the "perfect storm" 25 years ago. Since then most factories have only built reinforced mini-risers since then, then problem has solved itself.
OW it is difficult to find non-reinforced mini-risers less than 20 years old ... and if you are still jumping 20 year old risers ....
Few of us expect a pair of risers to last more than 600 or 1,000 jumps and if you have not made 1,000 jumps over the last 25 years ... you are in the wrong sport.

[skytribe 16]

Now I can see a bit of reasoning in that somewhere in the system needs a relief that if the forces are that high that it will break the component rather than putting unacceptable forces on the person.

However, I'm not convinced that leaving out the reinforcement is the answer -especially with RSL's involved.

That being said don't some manufacturers mount the RSL attachment ring lower than the grommet which was the place at which the risers were breaking and hence even if the riser did break at the grommet it wouldn't fire the reserve.

[RiggerLee 61]

Yes and it makes a nice location. But the grommet hole is only one failure point. You'll also see failures from the internal forces where the tape on the smallest ring fails releasing the entire riser. That's the advantage of the elongated ring from aerodyne. it increases the mechanical advantage of the middle ring reducing the internal load on the small ring.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[Patterson 0]

I wanted to take a minute to thank everyone for replying to my thread. I really appreciate it guys. I think I have enough information to go forward with an educated decision. Thank you so much!

[councilman24 36]

Yeah, but what is it so we can tell you it's wrong?

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