dantidote 0 #1 March 25, 2014 Hi all, I'm finally looking at purchasing gear! There's a rig available that would fit me perfectly, and has the right sized main (170). My only concern is the reserve is pretty small (143). I'm 140lb, and have low jump numbers at the moment. Everything I read says keeping the main and reserve close to the same size would be beneficial, as the flight characteristics would be similar. I really like the rig, but if it's a terrible idea, I'd like to know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BigMark 1 #2 March 25, 2014 If its a great deal get a bigger optimum and sell the 143, they sell very quickly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #3 March 25, 2014 dantidote Hi all, I'm finally looking at purchasing gear! There's a rig available that would fit me perfectly, and has the right sized main (170). My only concern is the reserve is pretty small (143). I'm 140lb, and have low jump numbers at the moment. Everything I read says keeping the main and reserve close to the same size would be beneficial, as the flight characteristics would be similar. I really like the rig, but if it's a terrible idea, I'd like to know. It's a terrible idea. You don't want to be landing out in a backyard, after a cutaway adrenaline pumping, on the smallest canopy you've ever landed."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ghost47 18 #4 March 25, 2014 QuoteIf its a great deal get a bigger optimum and sell the 143, they sell very quickly. Before following this advice, make sure that an Optimum 176 would actually FIT in this rig, along with a 170 main. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #5 March 25, 2014 QuoteBefore following this advice, make sure that an Optimum 176 would actually FIT in this rig, along with a 170 main That and if a rigger tells you, that the reserve you are jumping is too small for your fat ass, then listen to them or end up like my friend Jay, who did not heed such advice and rode a blown up reserve in to his death. Quote Camera flyer died in Colorado http://www.skyxtreme.com/archive/sept99/safety.html Late Friday afternoon, on August 27, Jay Engle died on a camera jump at The Front Range Skydivers in Calhan, CO. He had some type of problem with his main and after executing EP's, had a very hard opening on his reserve. The opening shock snapped a couple of lines and the resulting hard landing under a partial canopy took his life. I was jumping at a dz that Jay started to learn at, I was one of his instructors and one of his riggers. I was also selling gear at the time. Jay came to me and priced a bunch of shit, I kept on telling him NO, bad choice etc. Jay was loaded with cash, and like a lot of rich people he liked to throw his cash around having fun and spending to get new toys was not an issue for him. One day he shows up with all these new rigs, like three of them! He at one point talked to me about this gear he got, and the very rig he went in on! I flat out told him he was heavy for that reserve and he was overloading it beyond the TSO..... well you got the have the smallest and coolest fashions to parade around, cool over function was the rule of the day and well, now you know the rest of the story. RIP Jay.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheCaptain 2 #6 March 25, 2014 If you are questioning the reserve size I would suggest calling PD and getting a demo of that reserve size. Take the demo up and put a few jumps on it, if it still feels too small you can get a optimum reserve the next size up.Kirk He's dead Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GLIDEANGLE 1 #7 March 25, 2014 I am going to guess that the 143 is a PD Reserve. If so, the manufacturer says that the max weight recommended under that canopy for a novice is 122 lbs. Details here: http://www.performancedesigns.com/pdreserve.aspThe choices we make have consequences, for us & for others! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dantidote 0 #8 March 26, 2014 Everyone's comments are certainly confirming my suspicions, 143 would've been stupid. Yeah, I could've got an optimum 160 in there, but it sounds like more fabric is better. So, I've passed up the rig entirely and have reserved a stock wings rig (40% off woo). It'll fit me and I can get a 176 reserve in it comfortably. Blue skies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites snowcrash75 0 #9 March 26, 2014 You'll be glad you did. There's not a lot of talk about it, but if you buy an AAD, it's because you're planning for one of two things: Poor judgement or unconsciousness. If its the latter over the former, there's a fair chance you won't be awake to navigate or flare. Think about what kind of parachute you'd like to land with no input. Probably not something smaller than what you're working with now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #10 March 27, 2014 dantidoteEveryone's comments are certainly confirming my suspicions, 143 would've been stupid. Yeah, I could've got an optimum 160 in there, but it sounds like more fabric is better. So, I've passed up the rig entirely and have reserved a stock wings rig (40% off woo). It'll fit me and I can get a 176 reserve in it comfortably. Blue skies! Smart man!"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #11 March 28, 2014 "... it sounds like more fabric is better. ..." ................................................................................ We only hear the truth from children and old folks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #12 March 30, 2014 Unscheduled down-sizing just doesn't sound like a good thing.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mrkeske 0 #13 April 3, 2014 I think that the reserve should always be the biggest possible, keep always the smallest W/L possible. Where you are going to need it, something already screwed up, so your judgment will be altered after it's used. Why do the reserve and main always have to be about the same size anyway? Wouldn't it just be good sense always have a 200 sq. ft. reserve, regardless of the size of the main? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #14 April 3, 2014 mrkeske Why do the reserve and main always have to be about the same size anyway? Wouldn't it just be good sense always have a 200 sq. ft. reserve, regardless of the size of the main? They do not have to be the same size, although most containers are sized for similar mains and reserve sizes. Some manufacturer's will make containers for smaller mains and larger reserves."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianyapxw 0 #15 April 4, 2014 Where did the trend come from, where containers are manufactured such that reserve and mains are similar size. This leads to pretty high wing loadings on certain containers that house high performance canopies. How come container manufacturers didn't like have a standard size for the reserve and design the containers around that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Pablo.Moreno 0 #16 April 4, 2014 Ya, we plan using a reserve and AAD for worst case scenario hence, unconscious. Any canopy loaded 1.8 or higher from 135 sq f under is going to dive you to the ground killing you either way. Unless you can guaranteed that when you are unconscious you are symmetrical, I don't think having a small reserve is to different from not having an AAD. The chances of having 2 outs is pretty slim and on how canopy behave now days. Lets say you have a Velo 89 and a reserve of same size or even a bit bigger they are not going to like each other because of how different both wings are, I think... (Please correct of I am wrong on that assumption, that thought just pooped in my head and decided to share it) Excuse my grammar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianyapxw 0 #17 April 4, 2014 Not true, things like AAD also work in weird scenarios like the guy who got into a spin on his wingsuit and couldn't deploy his reserve, saw the vid on youtube but not sure how to find it again. Having a small reserve, while not ideal, still helps in certain scenarios, like if you crash into trees or wake up under canopy, it's no excuse not to have a reserve. What I don't understand is why containers are made such that your reserve and main both must be under 100 sq ft. Why not make a container that can have both a high performance canopy and a student size reserve. Maybe a rigger can weigh in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #18 April 4, 2014 Because tiny reserves make your ass look fat! ... err ... they make your ass look FAST! Hah! Hah! Reserve sizes have nothing to do with logic ... rather, they are all about fashion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #19 April 4, 2014 We saw a massive increase in "two out" malfunctions after electronic AADs became fashionable about 20 years ago (mid 1990s). Guys had been "sucking down" for a long time. Most sky-gods refused to wear FXC 12000 AADs because everyone knew that FXCs were imprecise and frequently miss-fired below 3,000 feet. I watched one FXC 12000 miss-fire at 7,000 feet. All the rest of the FXC miss-fires occurred below 2,000 feet. Why was any licensed skydiver still free-falling below 2,000 feet? Then Cypres came along with far more precise electronic altitude measurement methods. So skydivers started complaining that Cypri malfunctioned between 1,000 feet and their official activation altitude of 750 feet. Why is any skydiver still free-falling below 1,000 feet? S&TAs tended to ground those (Cypres-equipped) whiners until their AADs returned from the factory with fresh cutters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #20 April 4, 2014 ... Lets say you have a Velo 89 and a reserve of same size or even a bit bigger they are not going to like each other because of how different both wings are ... ............................................................................ Agreed! Since most many modern skydivers have never jumped a medium-sized, 7-cell main, they are silly to wear tiny, 7-cell reserves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianyapxw 0 #21 April 4, 2014 Sorry, I'm quite lost. Are we actually seeing an increase in "two-outs" especially since your post indicates AADs have gotten better and better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #22 April 4, 2014 ianyapxwSorry, I'm quite lost. Are we actually seeing an increase in "two-outs" especially since your post indicates AADs have gotten better and better. ................................................................................. I was being sarcastic about the 30-year trend. Before Cypres, hardly any licensed skydivers wore AADs and 2-out malfunctions were rare. We saw a dramatic increase in 2-outs when Cypres was introduced (early 1990s). However, 2-outs have decreased as skydivers have become more altitude-aware. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianyapxw 0 #23 April 4, 2014 Thanks for the explanation. Since 2 outs are getting more rare, do you think it makes sense to have a reserve so small still and risk getting badly injured when landing, or do you think reserves should be larger? Also, is a 2 out so likely that container manufacturers make such small containers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #24 April 4, 2014 ianyapxw What I don't understand is why containers are made such that your reserve and main both must be under 100 sq ft. Why not make a container that can have both a high performance canopy and a student size reserve. Maybe a rigger can weigh in? Nothing to do w/ rigging. Or logic (as riggerrob points out) It is simply market demand, IMHO."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mrkeske 0 #25 April 4, 2014 Well, my logic, if eventually I downsize to a canopy that will require a smaller container, I certainly am going to see that I'm still able to pack my Optimum 176 (WL ~1.4 for me) in it, regardless if my smaller main will be a Crossfire-139 or a Velo-97. It's just good sense giving more importance to your security when you need a reserve than to your "looks" or how "fat" your container is. If your unconscious and the AAD fires (several examples here: http://www.dropzone.com/safety/General_Safety/Implications_of_Recent_Tracking_Tracing_and_Wingsuit_Incidents_938.html) you will be glad that the reserve was large enough for you no to die, or get maimed on a ground impact! . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
BigMark 1 #2 March 25, 2014 If its a great deal get a bigger optimum and sell the 143, they sell very quickly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #3 March 25, 2014 dantidote Hi all, I'm finally looking at purchasing gear! There's a rig available that would fit me perfectly, and has the right sized main (170). My only concern is the reserve is pretty small (143). I'm 140lb, and have low jump numbers at the moment. Everything I read says keeping the main and reserve close to the same size would be beneficial, as the flight characteristics would be similar. I really like the rig, but if it's a terrible idea, I'd like to know. It's a terrible idea. You don't want to be landing out in a backyard, after a cutaway adrenaline pumping, on the smallest canopy you've ever landed."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ghost47 18 #4 March 25, 2014 QuoteIf its a great deal get a bigger optimum and sell the 143, they sell very quickly. Before following this advice, make sure that an Optimum 176 would actually FIT in this rig, along with a 170 main. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #5 March 25, 2014 QuoteBefore following this advice, make sure that an Optimum 176 would actually FIT in this rig, along with a 170 main That and if a rigger tells you, that the reserve you are jumping is too small for your fat ass, then listen to them or end up like my friend Jay, who did not heed such advice and rode a blown up reserve in to his death. Quote Camera flyer died in Colorado http://www.skyxtreme.com/archive/sept99/safety.html Late Friday afternoon, on August 27, Jay Engle died on a camera jump at The Front Range Skydivers in Calhan, CO. He had some type of problem with his main and after executing EP's, had a very hard opening on his reserve. The opening shock snapped a couple of lines and the resulting hard landing under a partial canopy took his life. I was jumping at a dz that Jay started to learn at, I was one of his instructors and one of his riggers. I was also selling gear at the time. Jay came to me and priced a bunch of shit, I kept on telling him NO, bad choice etc. Jay was loaded with cash, and like a lot of rich people he liked to throw his cash around having fun and spending to get new toys was not an issue for him. One day he shows up with all these new rigs, like three of them! He at one point talked to me about this gear he got, and the very rig he went in on! I flat out told him he was heavy for that reserve and he was overloading it beyond the TSO..... well you got the have the smallest and coolest fashions to parade around, cool over function was the rule of the day and well, now you know the rest of the story. RIP Jay.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheCaptain 2 #6 March 25, 2014 If you are questioning the reserve size I would suggest calling PD and getting a demo of that reserve size. Take the demo up and put a few jumps on it, if it still feels too small you can get a optimum reserve the next size up.Kirk He's dead Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GLIDEANGLE 1 #7 March 25, 2014 I am going to guess that the 143 is a PD Reserve. If so, the manufacturer says that the max weight recommended under that canopy for a novice is 122 lbs. Details here: http://www.performancedesigns.com/pdreserve.aspThe choices we make have consequences, for us & for others! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dantidote 0 #8 March 26, 2014 Everyone's comments are certainly confirming my suspicions, 143 would've been stupid. Yeah, I could've got an optimum 160 in there, but it sounds like more fabric is better. So, I've passed up the rig entirely and have reserved a stock wings rig (40% off woo). It'll fit me and I can get a 176 reserve in it comfortably. Blue skies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowcrash75 0 #9 March 26, 2014 You'll be glad you did. There's not a lot of talk about it, but if you buy an AAD, it's because you're planning for one of two things: Poor judgement or unconsciousness. If its the latter over the former, there's a fair chance you won't be awake to navigate or flare. Think about what kind of parachute you'd like to land with no input. Probably not something smaller than what you're working with now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #10 March 27, 2014 dantidoteEveryone's comments are certainly confirming my suspicions, 143 would've been stupid. Yeah, I could've got an optimum 160 in there, but it sounds like more fabric is better. So, I've passed up the rig entirely and have reserved a stock wings rig (40% off woo). It'll fit me and I can get a 176 reserve in it comfortably. Blue skies! Smart man!"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #11 March 28, 2014 "... it sounds like more fabric is better. ..." ................................................................................ We only hear the truth from children and old folks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #12 March 30, 2014 Unscheduled down-sizing just doesn't sound like a good thing.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrkeske 0 #13 April 3, 2014 I think that the reserve should always be the biggest possible, keep always the smallest W/L possible. Where you are going to need it, something already screwed up, so your judgment will be altered after it's used. Why do the reserve and main always have to be about the same size anyway? Wouldn't it just be good sense always have a 200 sq. ft. reserve, regardless of the size of the main? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #14 April 3, 2014 mrkeske Why do the reserve and main always have to be about the same size anyway? Wouldn't it just be good sense always have a 200 sq. ft. reserve, regardless of the size of the main? They do not have to be the same size, although most containers are sized for similar mains and reserve sizes. Some manufacturer's will make containers for smaller mains and larger reserves."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianyapxw 0 #15 April 4, 2014 Where did the trend come from, where containers are manufactured such that reserve and mains are similar size. This leads to pretty high wing loadings on certain containers that house high performance canopies. How come container manufacturers didn't like have a standard size for the reserve and design the containers around that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pablo.Moreno 0 #16 April 4, 2014 Ya, we plan using a reserve and AAD for worst case scenario hence, unconscious. Any canopy loaded 1.8 or higher from 135 sq f under is going to dive you to the ground killing you either way. Unless you can guaranteed that when you are unconscious you are symmetrical, I don't think having a small reserve is to different from not having an AAD. The chances of having 2 outs is pretty slim and on how canopy behave now days. Lets say you have a Velo 89 and a reserve of same size or even a bit bigger they are not going to like each other because of how different both wings are, I think... (Please correct of I am wrong on that assumption, that thought just pooped in my head and decided to share it) Excuse my grammar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianyapxw 0 #17 April 4, 2014 Not true, things like AAD also work in weird scenarios like the guy who got into a spin on his wingsuit and couldn't deploy his reserve, saw the vid on youtube but not sure how to find it again. Having a small reserve, while not ideal, still helps in certain scenarios, like if you crash into trees or wake up under canopy, it's no excuse not to have a reserve. What I don't understand is why containers are made such that your reserve and main both must be under 100 sq ft. Why not make a container that can have both a high performance canopy and a student size reserve. Maybe a rigger can weigh in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #18 April 4, 2014 Because tiny reserves make your ass look fat! ... err ... they make your ass look FAST! Hah! Hah! Reserve sizes have nothing to do with logic ... rather, they are all about fashion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #19 April 4, 2014 We saw a massive increase in "two out" malfunctions after electronic AADs became fashionable about 20 years ago (mid 1990s). Guys had been "sucking down" for a long time. Most sky-gods refused to wear FXC 12000 AADs because everyone knew that FXCs were imprecise and frequently miss-fired below 3,000 feet. I watched one FXC 12000 miss-fire at 7,000 feet. All the rest of the FXC miss-fires occurred below 2,000 feet. Why was any licensed skydiver still free-falling below 2,000 feet? Then Cypres came along with far more precise electronic altitude measurement methods. So skydivers started complaining that Cypri malfunctioned between 1,000 feet and their official activation altitude of 750 feet. Why is any skydiver still free-falling below 1,000 feet? S&TAs tended to ground those (Cypres-equipped) whiners until their AADs returned from the factory with fresh cutters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #20 April 4, 2014 ... Lets say you have a Velo 89 and a reserve of same size or even a bit bigger they are not going to like each other because of how different both wings are ... ............................................................................ Agreed! Since most many modern skydivers have never jumped a medium-sized, 7-cell main, they are silly to wear tiny, 7-cell reserves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianyapxw 0 #21 April 4, 2014 Sorry, I'm quite lost. Are we actually seeing an increase in "two-outs" especially since your post indicates AADs have gotten better and better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #22 April 4, 2014 ianyapxwSorry, I'm quite lost. Are we actually seeing an increase in "two-outs" especially since your post indicates AADs have gotten better and better. ................................................................................. I was being sarcastic about the 30-year trend. Before Cypres, hardly any licensed skydivers wore AADs and 2-out malfunctions were rare. We saw a dramatic increase in 2-outs when Cypres was introduced (early 1990s). However, 2-outs have decreased as skydivers have become more altitude-aware. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianyapxw 0 #23 April 4, 2014 Thanks for the explanation. Since 2 outs are getting more rare, do you think it makes sense to have a reserve so small still and risk getting badly injured when landing, or do you think reserves should be larger? Also, is a 2 out so likely that container manufacturers make such small containers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #24 April 4, 2014 ianyapxw What I don't understand is why containers are made such that your reserve and main both must be under 100 sq ft. Why not make a container that can have both a high performance canopy and a student size reserve. Maybe a rigger can weigh in? Nothing to do w/ rigging. Or logic (as riggerrob points out) It is simply market demand, IMHO."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrkeske 0 #25 April 4, 2014 Well, my logic, if eventually I downsize to a canopy that will require a smaller container, I certainly am going to see that I'm still able to pack my Optimum 176 (WL ~1.4 for me) in it, regardless if my smaller main will be a Crossfire-139 or a Velo-97. It's just good sense giving more importance to your security when you need a reserve than to your "looks" or how "fat" your container is. If your unconscious and the AAD fires (several examples here: http://www.dropzone.com/safety/General_Safety/Implications_of_Recent_Tracking_Tracing_and_Wingsuit_Incidents_938.html) you will be glad that the reserve was large enough for you no to die, or get maimed on a ground impact! . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
