0
9XOUTOF10

G4 Mirage system

Recommended Posts

All my years of being in this sport I have had my hands on a bunch of different rigs,hands down mirage is the best,most comfortable most durable most dependable..I have met with several employees and I can honestly say that they care about the safety of the people in this sport there work is outstanding and I thank them for that. Mirage customer for life!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more then an opinion, it's a fact. The G3 is by far the superior rig of the two. By the time they built the G3 it was a mature well designed system. I think one of the best designed rigs on the market. Not just from function but also in terms of manufacturing. I say that as some one who builds things for a living. Every change or addition they made when they went to the G4 was a step backwards. I've always had this theory that it was a rig designed by committee. I don't have any proof but I believe that some marketing guy took a servey of random riggers and skydivers asking them what features they would like to see in a rig. They picked ten random features to add to the G3 and then dictated that these design changes be added to the container as a purely marketing gimmick. This is the only way that I can account for the random pointless changes made to the perfectly functional design of the G3 much of it to it's detriment.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I prefer packing G4 free bags.



Although I do like using fewer tools (no locking pullup cord, woot!), I find that molar bags kinda suck when the pilot chute has a large base, like the Mirage PC does. So I like the G3 freebag better in spite of the extra hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Although I do like using fewer tools (no locking pullup cord, woot!), I find that molar bags kinda suck when the pilot chute has a large base, like the Mirage PC does. So I like the G3 freebag better in spite of the extra hassle.




+1. I agree with this 100%. The G4 Molar bag design also tends to warp and distort the #2 PC Kicker flap - the bag design of the G3 allows a flat surface for the reserve PC to sit without the tendency for the collapsed or semi-collapsed PC Kicker flap to allow the reserve PC to sit at an aggressive angle. It only takes 1 sloppy packjob of a G4 to distort this flap.
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how is adding a molar bag to the G4 system an up grade? What purpose does it serve in this system other then to reduce available volume in the reserve tray and distort the stiffeners in the flaps above it? Totally pointless exercise in marketing to the detriment of function. It's got that fucking molar bag in there that is a fact not an opinion.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's got that fucking molar bag in there that is a fact not an opinion.



"The Mirage G4 uses a Molar bag" = Fact
"Molar Bag is not as good/nice/useful as the previous design" = Opinion

I agree with you, I prefer the design of the G3 over the G4, but I'd be willing to bet that the designers of the system feel differently. I'm just saying let's not confuse facts of a system with our opinions of those facts.
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This part of the debate started with me expressing a preference for molar bags.

I like molar bags because they require one fewer tools (locking pull-up cord) and reduce the risk of canopy damage when dragging the pull-up cord through the molar bag.
I can count on one hand the number of reserve canopies that I have patched and most of them were damaged by riggers who used more muscle than skill when pulling cords through.

The other advantage is that molar bags (almost) eliminate one variable: the amount of canopy bulk near the closing loop. That bulk can radically change closing forces and loop length. The fewer variables I have to worry about, the better.

I also dislike the sort-of-molar-bags installed in Icons. They have grommets in both the top skin and bottom skin as well as an interior wall protecting the closing loop. They are better because their inner wall prevents closing loops from rubbing on canopy fabric. Their disadvantage is requiring a steel T-bodkin to drag the closing loop through the bag. Again, the fewer tools the better.

As an aside, the last couple of Icons that I packed were so "stupid tight" that they required perfect technique to insert the canopy in the freebag. If I had not packed all those Talon T0 prototypes a couple of decades ago, I never would have attempted packing those tight Icons. The fully-packed reserves were "as soft as concrete!"

As another aside, one of the few free-bags that I had to patch was a similar Icon, after another rigger had used more muscle than skill while inserting the canopy into the (Oxford cloth) free-bag.

The easiest free bags are in Wings because they are shaped to allow riggers to pack some canopy fabric near the closing loop, but canopy fabric can never rub on the closing loop. Finally, you need zero extra tools to route closing loops through Wings molar bags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0