0
Wally Tarasewicz

Not sure what this is,,,,but it looks interesting enough.

Recommended Posts

(edited)

It requires 2 closing loops of exactly the same length, out of something slightly thinner than standard Cypres cord. Both also have to be threaded through the AAD cutter. It's a pain in the arse, and having a Collins lanyard or just building your risers properly are better and more modern solutions.

Edited by Quagmirian
typo on to or
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Quagmirian said:

It requires 2 closing loops of exactly the same length, out of something slightly thinner than standard Cypres cord. Both also have to be threaded through the AAD cutter. It's a pain in the arse, and having a Collins lanyard on just building your risers properly are better and more modern solutions.

As if CYPRES cord loops are not already fragile enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Yes, this was before the Collin's lanyard and was intended to solve the issue of the non-RSL-connnected riser not releasing properly. (or the RSL-connected one breaking and activating the reserve without a cut-away first) With two RSLs, two pins, and two loops the reserve container wouldn't open until both risers had released. The loop material was crazy thin, see attached image. Regular Cypres loop at the bottom right for comparison. The "LOR2" loops (as they were called) came sewn together in a pair of precisely the same length, but it was quite awkward to adjust the length and set them up in the Cypres washer and still keep the same length. They were so thin that it felt that you only had one chance to close the container. After one go at it, you feared that you might have worn them down slightly to the point where it wouldn't be advisable to use them any more.

There was another funny detail that I recall. Only one of the RSLs was hooked up with a Swede-link that could be opened quickly. The other one was attached to the riser with a rapide link, i.e., quite cumbersome to open if you are in a hurry. So, in the event of a landing in strong winds you could unsnap the one RSL, chop the main, and avoid being dragged across the ground. However, the other riser would pull its pin as the main left and you would have to get the rig repacked! Trying to reinsert the pin in the very thin and fragile loop would not be a good idea, if even possible (I never had the opportunity to try).

Cypres_loops.jpg

Edited by Divingdude
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOR was one solution to the problem with main risers breaking - circa 1990.

Since 1992, a couple of ways to build stronger Type 17 risers have been published by PIA and 3-Ring Inc. See the thread on 3-Ring drawings.

Now broken risers are rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2020 at 7:33 PM, Quagmirian said:

It requires 2 closing loops of exactly the same length, out of something slightly thinner than standard Cypres cord. Both also have to be threaded through the AAD cutter. It's a pain in the arse, and having a Collins lanyard or just building your risers properly are better and more modern solutions.

If you think about it . It is the only device which guarantee you the reserve will open only when both risers left ! Otherwise I agree it makes it more complicated to pack and special reserve loops....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If you think about it . It is the only device which guarantee you the reserve will open only when both risers left ! Otherwise I agree it makes it more complicated to pack and special reserve loops....

The more traditional way of making sure that a broken riser doesn’t result in an open reserve container is to simply not have an RSL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Nowhere near the same design.

Thanks for that, I was sure those two were the same thing.
Any chance you could explain the difference in words or a picture (not sure if I'd be hogging the thread but I guess there might be others confusing these two)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Binary93 said:

Thanks for that, I was sure those two were the same thing.
Any chance you could explain the difference in words or a picture (not sure if I'd be hogging the thread but I guess there might be others confusing these two)?

Hi Binary,

I'll try. 

The Jump Shack design used a cross connecting lanyard that goes around the back of the jumper's neck, on the container.  This what a lot of people consider the problem with their design.

The French system just uses two lanyards, one from each riser.  No cross connector.

I do not have any photos to show.  Anyone??????

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like this? (red being the cross connecting lanyard, blue being the reserve rip cord)?

If so, this would mean that if one riser releases, it will stay connected to the other one before deploying the reserve? (Not sure if I understood you correctly, but it fits their "release RSL on one side before cutaway" requirement).

 

image.png.7b1e12e24b0b8aed5856f50ebfb9d1b5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Binary93 said:

Something like this? (red being the cross connecting lanyard, blue being the reserve rip cord)?

If so, this would mean that if one riser releases, it will stay connected to the other one before deploying the reserve? (Not sure if I understood you correctly, but it fits their "release RSL on one side before cutaway" requirement).

 

image.png.7b1e12e24b0b8aed5856f50ebfb9d1b5.png

Hi Binary,

That is pretty close; nicely done.

IMO the problem is:  ' . . . "release RSL on one side before cutaway" requirement).'

That simply requires too much of the jumper when encountered with a malfunction.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not seen that video. I'm surprised he lived through it. I would have expected the decent rate to be higher. I guess he was lucky the canopy was not more asymmetric. The one I remember was back in the day and he died. I wonder what the gs were with double line length?

 

Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 12:42 PM, RiggerLee said:

I had not seen that video. I'm surprised he lived through it. I would have expected the decent rate to be higher. I guess he was lucky the canopy was not more asymmetric. The one I remember was back in the day and he died. I wonder what the gs were with double line length?

 

Lee

Remember the main was up there above the reserve likely partially or fully inflated.  That must be why rate of decent wasn't a lot higher than max reserve speed.

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.

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.

0