0
arai

what do you think are the next advancements?

Recommended Posts

Quote

"BASE-only" guys certainly don't make enough wingsuit flights to claim any performance dominance over guys that make 400 wingsuit skydives a year.



I think you may be over-estimating the number of "BASE-only" guys.

I know quite a few folks who now think of themselves as "wingsuit only" guys, without regard to whether they are flying from planes or objects.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does any-one think the BASE influence may bring down opening heights in skydiving wingsuiting by using base canopies and dumping lowish but still adequate time for reserve?

Seen a bit of this happening and it does appear almost OK. Instead of approx 5 seconds a thou it's more like 10+ seconds without trying too hard and down below 2000 it's ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does any-one think the BASE influence may bring down opening heights in skydiving wingsuiting by using base canopies and dumping lowish but still adequate time for reserve?

Seen a bit of this happening and it does appear almost OK. Instead of approx 5 seconds a thou it's more like 10+ seconds without trying too hard and down below 2000 it's ???



I think this phenomenon is going to be very limited. It requires that the wingsuit pilot have a specialized rig (different from either their standard BASE rig or their normal skydiving rig), and that they be well enough known to their DZO (or other authority) to allow it.

I've seen it too, but I think it's going to be a very small group of people who are actually that far into it, and I think that mostly it will be for demos and such.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does any-one think the BASE influence may bring down opening heights in skydiving wingsuiting by using base canopies




There are already people using BASE canopies in their containers for wingsuit skydives. It's not so much about "how fast my canopy opens " as it is about having enough altitude to deal with any post opening problems which can eat a lot of altitude very quickly. ScaryPerry has a nice setup with a BASE canopy and a skyhook for this very purpose.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outrager said
Quote

Unfortunately, there is only a tiny fraction of pilots that are actually inerested in perfomance flying (i.e. improving glide ratio). Vast majority of skydiving WS pilots don't really care about perfomance while flocking etc, and many recent wingsuit models already reflect it.



SkymonkeyOne said
Quote


The bottom end of almost every single flock I have ever been on turns into a "performance" race. While my S3 is definitely overkill for flocking, it's the massive range of the suit and the ability to really punch it out on the bottom during those races that keep me in such a big suit. Hell, that's one of the best parts of the dive in my opinion! :)



There are a few problems with correctly assessing performance at the end of a flock.

1) If you are looking at others, you are not flying your best. For obvious reasons, you must look when flying with others(Matt, you can have a field day with this one ;)).

2) Not everyone is flying in the same direction, that can create interesting illusions to the flyers themselves. See attached picture.

Performance in terms of improving glide ratio, is doing the best you can. Not what you can do against others.

SkymonkeyOne said
Quote


While genetics are obviously going to help out tall, thin, europeans in some regards, it's the actual experience of making many repeated flights which gives a person a real "performance" edge. Just my observations.

Chuck



I interpret what Yuri said

Quote

Genetic engineering ;)



as follows...

If genetic engineers can make humans that have bodies better suited to flying...maybe to do with implanting specific bird genes(like the ones for hollow bones, arms reaching the ground and while they are at it, they can add some feathers too) into humans, that would be a definate advancement.

I agree with you that the actual experience gained by making repeated flights, makes a flyer better, at what that flyer is repeating.

Kris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yo !

I hear what you say, and agree with most of it. More airtime = more skill. While flocking and maxing out are quite different, there's plenty of crossover experience. Still, somebody who only flies in the mountains may perform quite poor in a large flock. Likewise, somebody with a thousand flocking dives may have a hard time off a gnarly cliff. The sport has already developed enough where every sub-discipline requires a different skill set.

My point was not to drive the wedge between "base" and "skydiving" pilots or to judge their skills. I just highlighted an obvious observation:

Perfomance (glide) is #1 priority for selecting a suit for BASE, but it isn't so for most skydivers. If it were #1, every suit sold 3 years ago would be S3, and every suit today would be V1. Instead, quite the opposite is true: a bunch of new models came out from every manufacturer to address other goals than perfomance, and skydivers are buying all of them.

As you said, it is nice to max out at the end of a flocking dive, but it isn't the goal of the flight. Opposite is true in the mountains: a number of sites one can fly is proportional to the glide ratio of a pilot, and those he can fly often improve a lot with a bit more perfomance.

Gear selection and development are dictated by the goal at hand. These goals are very different in skydiving and BASE environments, and wingsuits will follow canopies and containers path, becoming more and more specialized. That in no way reflects on the pilot's level - for each his own.

A perfect field to apply both precision and perfomance skills is the new exploding discipline of proximity flying (what Loic and VKB do so well). I doubt it will convert enough DZ regulars to really close the gap, but those who survive this discipline will become the best all-around flyers in the world - out of pure necessity ;)

bsbd!

Yuri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If genetic engineers can make humans that have bodies better suited to flying...



While we are waiting for genetic engineering to catch up....

Are any tall skinny long-legged female wingsuit flyers up for a good old genetic selection method? This is all about our future! PM please :)

bsbd!

Yuri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chuck,

I think you misunderstood Yuri's point a bit.

It's not about BASE vs SD WS flights, pilots, or skills. It's about the primary driving force for expanding WS design, IMO. Many of the most moder WSs on the market including your S3 came about due to BASE needs rather than skydiving needs...and you can hear this straight from the horse mouth...

Skydiving is now for me more like a gym than anything else, a fun gym nonetheless. I am training hard in this gym because I know one day I might have to max out for my life...in SD maxing out at the end of a flight might be fun but your life does not depend upon it...that's why some of the best trackers and some of the best WS pilots in the world are just not skydivers...
Memento Audere Semper

903

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to "Few DZOs will tolerate opening much below USPA recommendations. '
....................


yep and a good thing too... for most of us.

However if the gear is designed to be use specific as in the skyhooked base canopy rig I'm wondering what would be acceptable seeing that it is quite different to plunging vertically down at 120mph+?

under canopy by 1800' in SD is acceptable even though it's only about 10 seconds of the deck. Riding a mal to say 1400' (3sec high speed mal ) before initiating EPs has most reserves out by 1000'....still 5secs(approx) from impact.

if this same margin for error was translated to WS/base-canopy/skyhook then a switched on WSer could happily dump at about 1600'-1700'.....if they were real quick on the EP trigger.
Some would go a lot lower if the margin for error was minimised or removed .

Not really recommending this but ......????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

yep and a good thing too... for most of us.

However if the gear is designed to be use specific as in the skyhooked base canopy rig I'm wondering what would be acceptable seeing that it is quite different to plunging vertically down at 120mph+?

under canopy by 1800' in SD is acceptable even though it's only about 10 seconds of the deck. Riding a mal to say 1400' (3sec high speed mal ) before initiating EPs has most reserves out by 1000'....still 5secs(approx) from impact.

if this same margin for error was translated to WS/base-canopy/skyhook then a switched on WSer could happily dump at about 1600'-1700'.....if they were real quick on the EP trigger.
Some would go a lot lower if the margin for error was minimised or removed .

Not really recommending this but ......????



Why should I buy a big-ass Vector3+Skyhook+large reserve+base canopy for wingsuite skydive?

I`d rather fly something with WL 1.2 than 0.8 if winds are higher.

For braking BSR in order to gain 10-20-30 sec of flight?
Altitude is a kind of insurance.

You must have been kidding. Its a really bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to "You must have been kidding. Its a really bad idea. '

Not kidding .this is a thread about possible future advancements..
Just done the math so it turns out the same/similar as some freefallers already experience quite legally and as recommended by many skydiving bodies around the world.

I also said ..NOT really recommending it. Just talking about it ......as in a discussion.

I like dumping way higher myself cause I like flying my moderately loaded canopy around.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I also said ..NOT really recommending it. Just talking about it ......as in a discussion.



First of all, I don't want to open so low.

My second reason for not doing that my resources are limited I don't think I'm going to have 3 rigs in the same time. Like a skydiving rig, main ZP150 or smaller, a hybrid Vector3 with skyhook and base canopy + a base rig ,even main shared with the previous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to "My second reason for not doing that my resources are limited I don't think I'm going to have 3 rigs in the same time. Like a skydiving rig, main ZP150 or smaller, a hybrid Vector3 with skyhook and base canopy + a base rig ,even main shared with the previous. "
.....................

Perhaps in the future the gear manufacturers will recognise this problem and make rigs that are more versatile so we don't have to buy so much stuff .

eg a modular rig that could be altered as required..... so the same harness/container could be used for base as well as skydiving.
This could reduce the gear requirements to 3 canopies (or two if you don't mind a slower canopy) and 1 container / harness .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to "I don't think that would happen. Simpler is better. "

It might BE simple if it was designed simple.

in reply to "Are you going to basejump some quasi hybrid skydiving container? I doubt anybody else will. "
........................

If it worked well sure I would.

The future is a VERY big place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

in reply to "The only way to learn is to 'fly' out of a plane (or off a cliff).
Unlike RW/Freefly, where windtunnels are becoming (or already are) the number one training-tool."
........................................

Perhaps some-one will get with it & design something similar to a wave pool but with air instead of water. Instead of a vertical tunnel a very strong breeze:D is directed up an angled /shaped slope .

Flyers could stand at the top of the and pop onto the lift when it's their turn....fly around a bit and swoop off when times up.
:)



I've often wondered if it would be feasible to take a mount from a retired, large telescope, and replace the telescope with a wind tunnel, such that the angle between the vertical and the free stream velocity is variable.

If the airspeed were also variable, you could even fly a canopy in such a tunnel.

For Great Deals on Gear


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"BASE-only" guys certainly don't make enough wingsuit flights to claim any performance dominance over guys that make 400 wingsuit skydives a year.

...
:S

yeah fucking right...
the biggest difference between chuck-flites and yuri-flights, are the intensity level... just about any competent 150+ skydiver can take a suit out of a plane...

however, it takes an extremely rare breed of person, to exit a cliff, and fly at a minimum glide ratio in order to survive..
not to mention the huge fucking balls necessary as well as the mental capacity and concentration to make world class flights...


every time....

and certainly out of reach of any "average boogie flocker"


:|
when did dz.com become a popularity contest?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to "If the airspeed were also variable, you could even fly a canopy in such a tunnel. "
................................

yes please.

Perhaps some sort of open slope/ramp could be used .
This could even be combined with the type of vertical tunnel that discharges upwards.(the vertical freefall simulator bit may need to be underground) The 'wasted' air blast could be directed across an adjustable shaped slope. One setting for wingsuits ...another for canopies.

With slope soaring you sometimes get to sit in a fairly small pocket of lift. Sometimes what creates the lift is only a smallish rise.
If you move away from this lift you fly out and down (usually ) if the slope was shaped right it wouldn't matter if you flew out of the lift as you could just fall/fly down on to the prepared landing slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

yeah fucking right...
the biggest difference between chuck-flites and yuri-flights, are the intensity level... just about any competent 150+ skydiver can take a suit out of a plane...

however, it takes an extremely rare breed of person, to exit a cliff, and fly at a minimum glide ratio in order to survive..
not to mention the huge fucking balls necessary as well as the mental capacity and concentration to make world class flights...



Wooooow!

We have a pissing contest! How nice! B|

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.

0