Problem with AAD MARS and its cutter

[BasicOne 4]

I'm sorry but my English is bad. I use a translator.

Hello everyone. In June 2023, I had the opportunity to conduct a broad analysis of the cutters AAD. It turned out that AAD M2 changed the cutting element in the cutters. After examining 5 Mars cutters, I discovered an unsatisfying result and it shocked me. In the photo below there will be two opened cutters. One is Cypress and the second is Mars.

Mars M2 made a copy of the Cypress cutter, but for some reason it was not completely and sooner or later it will play a cruel joke on the owners of these devices.
In a Cypress, when a charge is triggered and a loop is cut, the cutter itself enters a soft damper, in which the loop is cut and the charge impulse is extinguished. All Cypres cartridges I shot when disassembling and removing the cutters showed the integrity of the cutter edge. When measuring the cutter before and after operation, they showed no deformation of the cutting edge. On the very edge there was no fine lint from the loop itself, and the loop had an even cut.
When shooting 5 rounds of Mars with production dates of 2019 (2 pieces), 2021 (2 pieces), 2022 (1 piece), and subsequent removal of the cutters, a significant deformation of the edge of the cutter itself was discovered. The edge material was deformed to a depth of 1.3 mm with the edge unfolding outward. Traces of the threads of the check loop of the Reserve container were visible on the edge.
If this cartridge is located on the side valve of the Reserve container and the loop is not cut enough, or gets caught on the edge of the edge, complete failure of the Reserve container is possible. Inserting the Reserve container manually will not lead to its uncoupling because the loop will be blocked by the chuck.
If the cartridge is at the bottom of the backpack, then the reserve can be activated by hand.
If you think that such a situation is impossible, then I will disappoint YOU; in Poland, a parachutist died due to a wedge with a Reserve container cartridge. By the way, there was an Argus device and after that this device was prohibited for use, and the office was closed.

The first 4 photos are the work of a Cypres. You can see how the damper took the entire load and maintained the integrity of the cutter. The loop cut was smooth and without fine lint on the edges.

The next 7 photos are of the Mars cutter and its receiving part without a damper. The cutter was severely deformed and had small particles of loop stuck in it on the edge.On the cutter itself there are traces from the cutter used to sharpen this element.

After this research, I decided to stop using the MARS m2 AAD. I believe that the operation of this device is not safe due to the possible snagging of the edge of the loop on the deformed edge and the cutter blocking the operation of the reserve parachute. If there are questions, I will try to answer them.

[Veis 18]

Oh, the expression "it's the same as a bullet made of shit" shone with a new light..

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Do you have pictures of the cut loops?

[BasicOne 4]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Do you have pictures of the cut loops?

Unfortunately I couldn't find them on my phone. I'll try to find it in the archives soon.

[pchapman 261]

Boy this brings back memories of the AAD wars from a decade or more ago!  

As far as I recall, this is how I'd put this into context compared to the other AAD companies:

Cypres always had the hardest, best cutting cutters.

Vigil has the circular cutters (effectively 2 blades), that they tout as being a good concept, but have come under some criticism, even though they generally do the job. 
(eg, one serious critique in "What's going on with AAD's" by Kirk Smith, 2011)

Argus had serious cutter issues. They also used circular cutters. (I got the impression that was due more to a Cypres patent in the early days?) Most issues were actually with their older style cutters, before upgrades in hardness & manufacture, but in any case the tide turned against  the company and their AAD's are pretty much irrelevant now.

Mars M2.... don't recall hearing of cutter issues before (for actual cutting), but never saw any engineering data on their cutter hardness.
(There was one accident relating to their very old MPAAD design, not the M2.)

Someone should ask Mars about their M2 cutter hardness. That's just one measure of goodness, but a decent one.
I would still have to dig up info on other designs, to see what metal hardness values were found for other companies.

.......Hmm, here's something I had on the Argus vs. others:

(My interpretations of the Polish report on the fatality there in 2009 that involved the Argus.)

Quote

-- Hardness of the cutter knife:
(in the Rockwell scale)

Argus old cutter 47-51          [my original post said 47-50 but looking at the Polish report, 47-51 is correct for values in their tests]
Argus new cutter 55
"another similar cutter" 59 (must be Vigil)
"a wedge shaped cutter" 64 (must be Cypres)

(I wouldn't take the numbers as conclusive due single tests on the competing brands, but it shows Argus has been a little on the low side.)

So, I wonder what an M2 cutter is like. Great testing by the original poster, BasicOne, thanks, but I'd like to see independent confirmation too!  [Edit:] After all, the M2 has been reasonably popular in recent years too, and surely cutting loops successfully, even if not out there in number like Vigils and Cypres'.

Edited January 30 by pchapman

[Veis 18]

52 minutes ago, pchapman said:

cutting loops successfully

By the look of the used cutter, it does not cut but munch.

[Deyan 31]

4 hours ago, pchapman said:

Vigil has the circular cutters....

 

If it even had a blade...

[BasicOne 4]

9 hours ago, pchapman said:

Boy this brings back memories of the AAD wars from a decade or more ago!  

As far as I recall, this is how I'd put this into context compared to the other AAD companies:

Cypres always had the hardest, best cutting cutters.

Vigil has the circular cutters (effectively 2 blades), that they tout as being a good concept, but have come under some criticism, even though they generally do the job. 
(eg, one serious critique in "What's going on with AAD's" by Kirk Smith, 2011)

Argus had serious cutter issues. They also used circular cutters. (I got the impression that was due more to a Cypres patent in the early days?) Most issues were actually with their older style cutters, before upgrades in hardness & manufacture, but in any case the tide turned against  the company and their AAD's are pretty much irrelevant now.

Mars M2.... don't recall hearing of cutter issues before (for actual cutting), but never saw any engineering data on their cutter hardness.
(There was one accident relating to their very old MPAAD design, not the M2.)

Someone should ask Mars about their M2 cutter hardness. That's just one measure of goodness, but a decent one.
I would still have to dig up info on other designs, to see what metal hardness values were found for other companies.

.......Hmm, here's something I had on the Argus vs. others:

(My interpretations of the Polish report on the fatality there in 2009 that involved the Argus.)

So, I wonder what an M2 cutter is like. Great testing by the original poster, BasicOne, thanks, but I'd like to see independent confirmation too!  [Edit:] After all, the M2 has been reasonably popular in recent years too, and surely cutting loops successfully, even if not out there in number like Vigils and Cypres'.

Here is a Mars cutter with a ring blade. I did not find a specially sharpened edge on it. It also does not have a recess in the blade like Vigil blades. In general, one gets the impression of a low level of engineering solutions in m2 devices.

Cutter DOM 2014

[BasicOne 4]

5 hours ago, Deyan said:

If it even had a blade...

In fact, the blade in it is good, but very capricious in terms of manufacturing accuracy. The gap between the blade and the body must be strictly observed. If it is too small and the blade may jam. Too large and the blade will warp when the loop-locking charge is activated. I can understand them, I had to spin around while the patent from Airteс was valid, but now you can install a standard A-shaped knife. True, you can eat crap here too.... basically, Mars started this indecent dinner.

[Deyan 31]

5 hours ago, BasicOne said:

In fact, the blade in it is good, but very capricious in terms of manufacturing accuracy. The gap between the blade and the body must be strictly observed. If it is too small and the blade may jam. Too large and the blade will warp when the loop-locking charge is activated. I can understand them, I had to spin around while the patent from Airteс was valid, but now you can install a standard A-shaped knife. True, you can eat crap here too.... basically, Mars started this indecent dinner.

I was referring to Vigil's PSB-8

Vigil R&D has confirmed that the electronics worked correctly and fired the cutter, but
because of the absence of the knife blade, the closing loop could not be cut.

 

[sundevil777 93]

On 1/31/2024 at 12:25 AM, BasicOne said:

In fact, the blade in it is good, but very capricious in terms of manufacturing accuracy. The gap between the blade and the body must be strictly observed. If it is too small and the blade may jam. Too large and the blade will warp when the loop-locking charge is activated. I can understand them, I had to spin around while the patent from Airteс was valid, but now you can install a standard A-shaped knife. True, you can eat crap here too.... basically, Mars started this indecent dinner.

Cutting is actually shearing, I understand that, but the Mars design seems different in a big way - the shearing happens long before the end of the piston stroke, or maybe I'm seeing it wrong.  Perhaps the "continued stroke" of the piston after the hole for the loop allows for some final stretching/breaking of stubborn fibers?  It could explain why the piston doesn't look like a traditional blade.  Perhaps the remaining loop material after activation isn't necessarily as bad is it sounds?  Does someone know if my thoughts are close to accurate?  I'm trying to be generous, to give the designers the benefit of the doubt, there could be some logic to the unusual look and results.

 

Edited February 7 by sundevil777

[Iwan 30]

Have you found some time to contact Mars?

What was the reason that you started this research?

[BasicOne 4]

9 hours ago, Iwan said:

Have you found some time to contact Mars?

What was the reason that you started this research?

Yes, I wrote a letter to them, but at the technical support address I received a return from the demon clarifying that there is no such address and the letter was not delivered. Then I wrote to the general address and the letter seemed to have arrived, but I did not receive an answer.
The reason for the research is the beginning of the development of our own devices due to the refusal to supply existing devices to Russia.

[IanHarrop 37]

I'd be much more concerned if I was looking at evidence of improperly cut closing loops. I've seen none in this thread and heard of none in the sport.

[Veis 18]

2 hours ago, IanHarrop said:

I'd be much more concerned if I was looking at evidence of improperly cut closing loops. I've seen none in this thread and heard of none in the sport.

Everything one time happens for the first time... Does everyone remember Airtec promotional video with cutting steel cable?

[skydiverek 55]

27 minutes ago, Veis said:

Everything one time happens for the first time... Does everyone remember Airtec promotional video with cutting steel cable?

 

What unexpected happened ?

 

 

[Veis 18]

23 minutes ago, skydiverek said:

 

What unexpected happened ?

The cutter, basically repeating a trusted design, turned out to be unexpectedly ruined. I doubt the success of a demonstration similar to Airtek...

[skydiverek 55]

7 minutes ago, Veis said:

The cutter, basically repeating a trusted design, turned out to be unexpectedly ruined. I doubt the success of a demonstration similar to Airtek...

 

To avoid confusion: which brand failed?

 

 

[Veis 18]

2 hours ago, skydiverek said:

To avoid confusion: which brand failed?

In our industry, only a proven corpse is a failure. In this sense, Mars is doing well, this is not a fail, but just a brand's study of the territory filled with old rakes... Leftovers from other brands and their failures.

Edited February 8 by Veis

[sundevil777 93]

That cutter is really different in how it shears the loop - doing it at the perimeter of the piston face to cylinder wall, like how a 2 stroke engine cuts off the ports in the cylinder.  That is different than smashing it with a cylindrical cutter against the "top of the cylinder head".  Am I wrong about how the Mars cutter is different?  It might make a big difference in what should be expected after a reliable cut.

 

[pchapman 261]

From BasicOne's posts, I get the idea that the M2 cutters are like this:

a) The old ones had the "flat plate plunger" design that shears the loop at both cutter holes.  Something not at all known to the public before, I think. Quite a different design.

b) Then I guess after Airtec/CYPRES' patent expired on single blade cutters, newer cutters use a single blade like a Cypres.
That the kind BasicOne did tests on, using 2019+ M2 cutters, and was concerned with the amount of damage to the cutting edge after firing.

[sundevil777 93]

41 minutes ago, pchapman said:

a) The old ones had the "flat plate plunger" design that shears the loop at both cutter holes.  Something not at all known to the public before, I think. Quite a different design.

Certainly don't remember them describing it as an advantage or innovative or whatever.  It could be.   

[Veis 18]

Mars's support reaction: