skydiving manufacturers influenced by BASE gear?

[flyingwallop 5]

should they be? discuss.

[pchapman 261]

Sarcastic answer: Sure let's go back to the 70s and keep lightening things until they break in use... (BASE has had some of that with lightweight rigs & canopies)

But more seriously, sure they are free to look at innovation in gear where ever they find it.

[flyingwallop 5]

Another thought just came to mind. Is any manufacturer making gear for both skydiving and BASE? Why not?

Excuse my ignorance. I am new in this world.

[likestojump 3]

flyingwallop

Another thought just came to mind. Is any manufacturer making gear for both skydiving and BASE? Why not?

Excuse my ignorance. I am new in this world.

Jumpshack
Atair
PD
Stunts, when they were around

[Blis 1]

likestojump

***Another thought just came to mind. Is any manufacturer making gear for both skydiving and BASE? Why not?

Excuse my ignorance. I am new in this world.

Jumpshack
Atair
PD
Stunts, when they were around

Skywide systems...

[riggerrob 558]

Yes!
Every new type of skydiving presents new ways to hurt yourself, so riggers invent new gadgets to prevent injuries. Ultimately, those inventions find their way into mainstream skydiving gear.

For example, the first form of competitive skydiving was precision landing. In the beginning, jumpers were happy if they landed on the correct field, soon added drive windows and steering slots to allow them to steer towards a target smaller than an acre.
This let to highly-modified round canopies like Para-Commanders.
After Domina Jalbert invented the square canopy, precision landing competitors quickly adopted squares and refined them to the point that world level competitors consistently stomped a 3 centimetre target 8 out of 10 times!

By 1980, square canopies had been perfected to the point that they were reliable enough for BASE jumping and have dominated BASE jumping ever since.

More chapters to follow.

[flyingwallop 5]

Looking forward to more chapters!

[degeneration 5]

I saw a picture someone posted of a base wingsuit or something that had in the toe part basically a proper sturdy shoe like sole and surround on it. Something that didn't look like it would wear out if you walk on it.

I'd like to see FS suit manufacturers adopt that in their suits, as usually the sole of the bootie is crap and needs to be shoe-gooed or the like to stop it being worn through too quickly. It shouldn't add too much to the cost to make the sole something more heavy duty to negate the requirement to shoe goo.

Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).

[riggerrob 558]

Careful what you wish for .....
I have made a lot of money sewing patches on frayed jumpsuit booties$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

My shoes are 90 percent exposed when I wear my Phoenix-Fly Prodigy wing suit. The front edge of the legs have straps that loop through my shoe laces.
This creates great "footing" and a long-lasting suit. Footing is especially important when climbing towards awkward BASE exit points.
The Profidy is aimed at beginning wing-suiters who feel claustrophobic in the huge suits now fashionable for BASE wing suit proximity-flying. Phoenix-Fly's marketing campaign encourages learning the basics (of wing suiting) in a Prodigy, then later buying one of their larger wing suits.

[DHemer 0]

There is more and more climbing harness technology making its way into Base harnesses. Predominantly due to the lighter weight. Check out the Adrenaline Base ABX harness.

It would be cool to see some of that come over to skydiving. Think how much smaller the rigs free flyers wear could be if they got rid of the pesky 3kg or more of reserve and Pc

[jumpwally 0]

....and what would be gained by that ?

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[riggerrob 558]

Climbing harnesses use barracks and less hardware to reduce weight.
Computerized bar-tacks allow manufacturers to more precisely align stitch patterns to loads. For example, the corner stitch (on an old-school, MIL SPEC rectangular stitch pattern) is usually the first to break. But if you bar-tack a rounded corner the load is more evenly shared by multiple stitches.
Bar-tacks normally use lighter thread (e.g. 8 pound E-Thread versus 40 pound 5-cord) so they have to design more precisely.
Computerized bar-trackers also allow precisely repeating an exotic stitch pattern (e.g. Crescent) that only the best sewers can do on their best day and only a few times per day.
All bar-tacked harnesses are not new technology. Back in 1991, Rigging Innovations certified (FAA TSO C23C) the Flexon harness mostly sewn with bar-tacks. Flexon harnesses passed all the heavy-weight, high-speed drop-tests. Since most of the Flexon harness joints were loaded in shear, bar-cracks worked fine and used less-expensive E-thread. The problem was that 1991-vintage bar-tack machines were not durable enough for long-term production, so R.I. reverted to old-school Class 7 machines running 5-cord.

[flyingwallop 5]

I find this very interesting even though I am googling BAR TACK to even begin to understand....

This harness I fell upon also looks interesting...
http://sflyequipment.com/products-showroom/jd/

[riggerrob 558]

Hint: look at your jeans. The belt loops are probably sewn on with bar-tack stitch patterns. Bar-tacks are just zig-zag stitch patterns. Bar-tack length and width are defined by steel cams inside older bar-tack machines.
Newer electronic bar-trackers have digital gremlins that run around inside the sewing machines pushing needles, pulling thread and jabbering away at each other in "gremlin-speak!"
Hah!
Hah!