2 2
JerryBaumchen

Merger

Recommended Posts

Dear HPC,

I would really like to see some updates to the Javelin. Yes, I know that they made a bunch of detail changes in 2000 and again when they added Skyhook, but the reserve pilot chute cap is the same diameter as when 26' lopos were fashionable as reserve canopies (circa 1984)! As Javelins get narrower and narrower, it is increasingly difficult to stuff all the pilot chute fabric under the cap.

Meanwhile, Rigging Innovations went through a variety of wide-cap pilot-chutes, but needed to introduce the narrow cap "Stealth" pilot chute to make the smaller Talon 1s and all the subsequent Flexon, '94 Talon, Talon 2, Aviator, Voodoo Curv, etc. deploy gracefully.

 

Sun Path could also learn a thing or two about ringed harness and pin cover design.

 

Do I sound biased? Yes! The years that I worked for Sandy Reid were some of the best years of my life!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Rigging Innovations' name for their MARD device. What's a MARD? It stands for main-assisted reserve deployment. If you cut away a malfunctioned main canopy the main, as it's being cut away, acts like a reserve deployment system and deploys the reserve. Usually it's faster than the jumper and can make the difference during low-altitude cutaways. Very popular option these days. I'm sure I will be corrected if needed but the MARD is coupled with an RSL (reserve static line) in which a lanyard attached to the main risers will pull the reserve container pin (almost always quicker than the jumper can) to open the reserve container, and the cutaway main will then act as a reserve pilot chute and extract the reserve free-bag from the reserve container, usually faster than the reserve pilot chute can since the malfunctioned main is already creating (usually more) drag and separating from the jumper. Corrections welcomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob,

I would agree with your assessment of the Javelin. I would also add that its main competitor, the Vector, is overdue for an overhaul and in need of the fourth generation variant as well. It also has dated features that could use an update, including some cosmetic ones. As noted in one of my previous posts, perhaps the impetus for SP buying/merging with RI is to acquire and later on incorporate some or perhaps all of the features unique to the Curv rig into the next generation Javelin rig. Even the Mirage is already on its fourth generation but it would appear (and I could be wrong) that the two H/C leaders (UPT and SP, respectively) seem to be resting on their laurels and continuing to produce rigs that haven't had any significant updates in too many years. Just a personal observation.

Mike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, accumack said:

Again your beef should be with Airborne not Sandy!

I can prove Sandy uses the Mojo without my permission , it is easy, I cannot prove the same with Airborne so far , there is no public document showing the Mojo inside an Airborne rig, I am working on it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, eric.fradet said:

Sandy uses the Mojo without my permission

Hi Eric,

My thoughts only:  I do not think that the Mojo infringes on your patent.  You use a solid, straight pin; the Mojo uses a 3-piece pin with a joint in the middle.

Mr. Zwicker told me he looked at all of the patents that he could find prior to designing the Airborne Systems MARD.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Eric,

My thoughts only:  I do not think that the Mojo infringes on your patent.  You use a solid, straight pin; the Mojo uses a 3-piece pin with a joint in the middle.

Mr. Zwicker told me he looked at all of the patents that he could find prior to designing the Airborne Systems MARD.

Jerry Baumchen

Well, battling it out on DZ. com may make one party feel better. But patent disputes are only settled by one of two ways. Negotiation, or litigation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2020 at 12:15 AM, gowlerk said:

Well, battling it out on DZ. com may make one party feel better. But patent disputes are only settled by one of two ways. Negotiation, or litigation.

 

On 3/5/2020 at 8:13 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Eric,

My thoughts only:  I do not think that the Mojo infringes on your patent.  You use a solid, straight pin; the Mojo uses a 3-piece pin with a joint in the middle.

Mr. Zwicker told me he looked at all of the patents that he could find prior to designing the Airborne Systems MARD.

Jerry Baumchen

hi Jerry,

you want the document Cease and Desist to Sandy Reid, here you go in the attached file; Mister Zwicker should look at it again....

Cease and Desist to Sandy REID.docx

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Interesting to see in that document some of the background to the situation. So a bunch of people in the industry were talking over the years-- Sandy Reid (RI) with Eric Fradet & Bill Gargano (Airborne Systems) & Henri P. (Sunrise) for example. Interesting that Sunrise Rigging licenced Eric's MARD. [Edit: took out half a sentence as I mixed two companies up.]

CAVEAT: My take on this is just as someone skimming over everything, with a bit of time to spare, not any sort of lawyer understanding the patent system or going over every claim word by word.

Eric's patent claim isn't at all what one would think from a quick look. We might think: "Hey, Eric's MARD uses a pin with a grommet or similar, in all sorts of possible variants as seen in his patent drawings." In casual discussion over the years, that's what you always hear, about "Eric Fradet's pin system MARD".

Then we look at RI's system, with a metal device that hinges to let the RSL line release when pulled in a certain direction, not using bridle slack or grommets. Seems totally different, not obvious or like pin systems.

But the actual claims in the detailed wording of the patent seem to be much broader, as presented in the lawyer's letter.

The patent doesn't talk initially about pins, but just a connection between RSL system and reserve bridle! So it seems to claim ANY attachment mechanism between RSL and bridle.

(Where the claim also includes other necessary background stuff -- of course it has to function as a MARD, staying attached or disconnecting depending on the situation.And the system has have the usual skydiving parts, like a main and reserve parachute and a way to stow the RSL.)

It's almost like all those drawings of various pin & loop & grommet designs are just there as camouflage, and to show off some possibilities. Those are covered in 20 other claims, but are minor if the claim #1 covers any RSL to bridle connection.

But if every connection is claimed, so how does Eric's patent not infringe on the Skyhook?

Well, I have only skimmed the Skyhook patent, but its claims are all about the hook & slot thing.

So is it a situation where Booth got the patent on hook & slot MARDs, while Eric basically then got a patent that covered everything else no matter how clever? (Except say the Mirage TRAP, because as packed, there is NO  connection between RSL and bridle. Weird but clever.)

(Eric's patent does mention the Skyhook in the Background section, saying it isn't ideal because in the case of a total malfunction situation, the Skyhook doesn't disconnect as quickly as it should, potentially delaying the reserve opening.)

If you have time Mr. Fradet, I sure would be interested to know the explanation. Patents can be very complex and opaque to the layman.

Eric's patent: long patent URL for Eric Fradet's MARD
 

 

Edited by pchapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pchapman said:

Interesting to see in that document some of the background to the situation. So a bunch of people in the industry were talking over the years-- Sandy Reid (RI) with Eric Fradet & Bill Gargano (Airborne Systems) & Henri P. (Sunrise) for example. Interesting that Sunrise Rigging licenced Eric's MARD. [Edit: took out half a sentence as I mixed two companies up.]

CAVEAT: My take on this is just as someone skimming over everything, with a bit of time to spare, not any sort of lawyer understanding the patent system or going over every claim word by word.

Eric's patent claim isn't at all what one would think from a quick look. We might think: "Hey, Eric's MARD uses a pin with a grommet or similar, in all sorts of possible variants as seen in his patent drawings." In casual discussion over the years, that's what you always hear, about "Eric Fradet's pin system MARD".

Then we look at RI's system, with a metal device that hinges to let the RSL line release when pulled in a certain direction, not using bridle slack or grommets. Seems totally different, not obvious or like pin systems.

But the actual claims in the detailed wording of the patent seem to be much broader, as presented in the lawyer's letter.

The patent doesn't talk initially about pins, but just a connection between RSL system and reserve bridle! So it seems to claim ANY attachment mechanism between RSL and bridle.

(Where the claim also includes other necessary background stuff -- of course it has to function as a MARD, staying attached or disconnecting depending on the situation.And the system has have the usual skydiving parts, like a main and reserve parachute and a way to stow the RSL.)

It's almost like all those drawings of various pin & loop & grommet designs are just there as camouflage, and to show off some possibilities. Those are covered in 20 other claims, but are minor if the claim #1 covers any RSL to bridle connection.

But if every connection is claimed, so how does Eric's patent not infringe on the Skyhook?

Well, I have only skimmed the Skyhook patent, but its claims are all about the hook & slot thing.

So is it a situation where Booth got the patent on hook & slot MARDs, while Eric basically then got a patent that covered everything else no matter how clever? (Except say the Mirage TRAP, because as packed, there is NO  connection between RSL and bridle. Weird but clever.)

(Eric's patent does mention the Skyhook in the Background section, saying it isn't ideal because in the case of a total malfunction situation, the Skyhook doesn't disconnect as quickly as it should, potentially delaying the reserve opening.)

If you have time Mr. Fradet, I sure would be interested to know the explanation. Patents can be very complex and opaque to the layman.

Eric's patent: long patent URL for Eric Fradet's MARD
 

 

Well that sounds like the old pilotchute assist from the 1960s on static lines so that would be prior art and void the patent!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like someone decided there were enough differences to make the patent non applicable. The patent holder disagrees. Either they negotiate, litigate, or drop it because it will cost to much to pursue.
 

This kind of dispute is common enough, and inventors feeling screwed over is as well. Sometimes for big commercial things. I think Nicola Tesla had some of his patents infringed upon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear HPC,

The Vector 3 was an almost completely new design, with many improvements over its Wonderhog, Vector 1 and Vector 2 predecessors. 

Over the last 25 years, I have seen a variety of small, cosmetic improvements to Vector 3, Micron, Sigma, etc. generations.

What improvements would you like to see in Vector 4?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Hi Rob,

Just off the top of my head, the Vector doesn't offer chest rings (i.e. fully articulated harness), cut-in laterals, and the reserve pin cover flap uses a tuck tab instead of sliding into a slot at the top of the midflap. I would imagine the tuck tab has a plastic sheet in it, and over time and when flexed repeatedly eventually it will crack. I had that happen to the top of my RPC over the course of a few years. Also, the reserve pin cover flap seems excessively long, at least on many rigs I've seen. Cosmetically, it would be nice to have harness stitching covers on the main lift web above the hip rings and where the chest strap is sewn onto the main lift web. On a positive note, I like the magnetic riser covers vs. tuck tab riser covers. Another good point are the secondary riser covers.

I'm not saying the Vector is a bad rig, it certainly isn't and that's supported by the fact that UPT is the largest producer of H/Cs in the world. Having said that, I just think there are a few options/features that, when compared to the competition, need updating. Just my personal opinion/preference.

Edited by HPC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2