3-rings upside down?

[weber 0]

I saw a rig where the 3-ring assmebly was upside down. The rings were pressed up against the person. Has anyone ever heard of this? It just didn't look right...I mean how could you get a good 3-ring check?

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

It is not really any harder to check your system. Also, you may have been looking at integrity risers, which aren't really reversed, just have an extra piece over the top which makes them look reversed. Still, there are plenty of people that jump fully reversed three-ring systems and love them for their "clean" appearance.
My webpage HERE

[scottbre 0]

Would the rings being reversed slow down the cutaway process, since the rings would be pressed against the body? Or do they get pulled away from the body when the chute opens, or tries to open?
Scott
"Can't keep my mind from the circling sky. Tongue-tied & twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I."

[DBTECH 0]

Posted eariler 2001
Jaime asks:
>>Can anyone tell me anything about integrity risers?
>>Thanks for your time.
Integrity risers were first dreamed up because of the fear of riser failure only on the side with an RSL connection, during a very fast/hard opening, which would result in a main-reserve entanglement.
(Yes, it has happened.
Integrity risers are built without a grommet in the riser for the cable loop. Instead, there is a tab on the ring side of the riser that has the grommet. Integrity risers are installed on the harness ring in reverse (riser rings toward rig). Integrity risers are stronger because of their absence of a grommet hole.
There are two negatives regarding integrity risers. The first is the fact that the loop mechanical advantage is close to half that of conventional risers, which in fact reduces the total mechanical advantage to close to half also. The reason that they have reduced mechanical advantage is because there is no longer a loop around the small ring, but a near straight line between the loop attachment point and the locking cable.
There is in fact recorded cases, where under a high G spinning malfunction, where the release cable was pulled into the grommet somewhat, due to the higher forces, which resulted in a very hard release cable pull. When you consider this factor combined with the high friction of soft housings, you can see the potential of a deadly combination.
This is not just my opinion, but is one shared by many in the industry.
As far as stainless housings, I recommend keeping them clean, along with clean cables with a little silicone applied. Regular maintenance will keep them at a low coefficient of friction.
The second negative is the possibility of not getting a riser release because of a combination of lower harness rings locations and a somewhat face to earth under a low drag malfunction. Rigs/harnesses made today are made with this in mind to assure high harness rings locations.
I do not use an RSL, but I do like the strength advantage of a hole-less TY-17 riser.
As far as a canopy with high spin rates associated with malfunctions being used with integrity risers, I myself have no problem with integrity risers, because of the factor of housing/cable maintenance.
I once had a very fast/hard, brutal opening on a Spectre 170 with integrity risers. When I examined the loop/grommet/cable point there was no evidence of penetration of the cable into the grommet, which in my opinion, gave me a better "feel" for the total mechanical system.
I recommend the use of the short metal excess cable housings installed in the stow channel in all risers, be it type 8 or type 17. These housings will prevent release cable capture/binding after a severe riser twist due to a severe canopy spin. 1/4" OD X 0.035" wall Teflon tubing works great also. One tack with Nylon wax cord 1/4"-3/8" from the inserted end holds it in place.
I'm not trying to put down type17 integrity risers, as I have used them myself.
Ultra blue skies,
Dave Brownell
DB Technologies
Mesa, AZ

[riggerrob 558]

You are referring to reversed or "integrity" risers invented by Parachutes de France back in the early 1990s.
Back then a whole series of new technologies were introduced simultaneously: Zero P fabric, Spectra suspension lines, Tube Stows, high wing loadings, Cypres, harness rings, collapsible pilotchutes, collapsible sliders, etc.
These new technologies, combined with sloppy packing caused several hard openings that broke risers, bent harness rings, broke necks, shredded canopies, etc.
Most of the broken risers were made of Type 17 that tore where it wraps around the middle ring. Riser manufacturers responded in two ways.
Parachutes de France invented reversed/integrity risers. They figured that since the hole for the grommet was a common wear point, eliminating that hole would result in a stronger riser. Mind you, few risers ever broke at the hole. Fraying around the grommet hole is more of a wear indicator. When the hole gets significantly elongated, it is time to replace any riser.
The rest of the industry - led by 3-Ring inventor Bill Booth - re-engineered conventional Type 17 risers. By adding one or two layers of Type 3 reinforcing tape near the middle ring, they eliminated that weak point.
Along the way, canopy manufacturers learned how to build canopies that were more tolerant of sloppy packing, while skydivers became neater packers.
So the problem of broken risers has almost disappeared, but we are stuck with stronger Type 17 risers.