0
DSE

What is a wingsuit?

Recommended Posts

Quote

A piece of equipment that spans material between a skydiver's arms, torso, and legs, designed for the ability to sustain forward movement through the air using only gravity as propulsion. The skydiver's body forms the majority of the frame for the wings of the suit.



This makes sense to me. I'm guessing that wingsuit manufacturers will agree with the "intent" mod. The working definition I posted earlier (that this is based on) had input from S-Fly, TonySuits, Birdman, and Phoenix Fly (did I miss anyone?). It wasn't written by any one person, but rather as a collaboration between manufacturers. For what it's worth, I think the IPC should keep the definition to what manufacturers are happy with since they make our toys.

The definition of a wingsuit is a discreet thing, and a starting point. Performance can be determined as part of record or competition rules.
It's the Year of the Dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to gecko:

but it fails to even look at the current market/landscape, let alone a future one. There is no bsr that states a wingsuit must have a cutaway.

Tonysuits is one of the largest current wingsuit makers and they dont *really* have a cutaway. They have got some designed sleeves that allow you access to you risers.

A lot of suits used to have leg cutaways and have now moved to wing only cutaways. Some intro begginer suits might not have cutaways because the design allows access to risers in the suit.

No ones stating that safety isn't improtant. I just dont think it belongs in the definition of a wingsuit, as with or without a cutaway, its still a wingsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arai,
Please don't get hung up on the word "cutaway" as a BSR, it is the safety intent for canopy access and control I am trying to get at (and didn't explain very well first go). I didn't use this word myself let alone my first 43 jumps being on an S-Fly Access.

All suit manufacturers allow you access to the risers for canopy control etc. Therefore, should the definition of a wingsuit be linked to "allowing or not infringing canopy access" or "even to require use with a canopy"?

Wingsuit "landing equipment" would then require its own definition, which seems logical to me as would be neither skydiving or BASE.

Gecko
www.gathhelmets.co.uk
www.flyyourbody.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

had input from S-Fly, TonySuits, Birdman, and Phoenix Fly (did I miss anyone?). It wasn't written by any one person, but rather as a collaboration between manufacturers.



Not entirely correct.
Only TonySuits and S-Fly input has been used so far of the current definition. And the rest is based on past comments/working versions of the definition.

There is input from Phoenix-Fly (post pending approval on IPC board) and Jari/Bird-man also has not yet submitted input on the matter, but is expected to soon.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Therefore, should the definition of a wingsuit be linked to "allowing or not infringing canopy access" or "even to require use with a canopy"?



Thats all stuff for the wingsuit manual/BSR.
Great to bring up, but not stuff linked to the definition as needed for the IPC.

Quote

Performance can be determined as part of record or competition rules.



Im not sure about that one..as you can split that definition into 2 parts.

Capable performance levels and realised performance levels.
The 2nd one could/would be part of a record definition. A certain performance (use of the wingsuit) needs to be flown for it to count as wingsuit-flying instead of wingsuit freefall.

But the first one (capable performance level) is suit design.
What can a suit do (even though it may not be used to the fullest here).

Although difficult to assign excactly, saying a suit needs to be able to perform at a LD (glide ratio) of at least 1.5 : 1 would probably do more good in narrowing down 'wingsuit or not' than any vague wording on design features and materials that try to also allow for future design options on other directions with regards to materials etc.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess my last response would be:

Just like you mentioned that 10 years ago cutwaways werent part of wingsuiting, 10 years from now they might be gone again.

your examples of cars I would say point out the problem. Your old school definition of a car would still work, by making the changes you suggest, you're restricting yourself to the cars which pass legal safety tests in order to be driven on public roadways. But if you changed the definition to reflect that, you would knock out all the race cars, or dune buggies, or offroad trucks that still can be produced without such safety equipment. If you leave the definition alone, you can still include all those types. As the car isnt defined by those bits.

This is about civil discourse and discussion, so I'm happy to discuss the point, and will make room for other people to say their piece, everyone has their own opinion. You asked "should we include safety or cutways in the definition" my answer would be "no"

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


There is input from Phoenix-Fly (post pending approval on IPC board) and Jari/Bird-man also has not yet submitted inpu



looks like it's been approved already but it's at the bottom of the thread...

so I guess if you reply to the whole thread by clicking "comment" it shows up at the top, newest first, but if you click "reply" on someone's post, it shows under that post (also newest first). just sayin, in case anyone gets confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Although difficult to assign excactly, saying a suit needs to be able to perform at a LD (glide ratio) of at least 1.5 : 1 would probably do more good in narrowing down 'wingsuit or not' than any vague wording on design features and materials that try to also allow for future design options on other directions with regards to materials etc.




only danger in regards to performance is that its based on the pilot.

I bet you I could find someone, put them in a vampire 3, and have them not hit a 1.5ld, even though others could hit that tracking.

so if you attach numbers to it how do you perform performance checks? How do you state what a thing is capable of when it varies from person to person?

I managed to get into the 60's with a pf tracking suit, but every persons build can change what a suit is capable of.

the nice thing about the "intent" clause is that it shows its intent is to fly and how it is inherent in the design , (again, restricting things like camera suits)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


All suit manufacturers allow you access to the risers for canopy control etc. Therefore, should the definition of a wingsuit be linked to "allowing or not infringing canopy access" or "even to require use with a canopy"?



what if in a few years you see a bunch of guys starting to land these suits? I know, hard to believe... I'm not the first one to go try that, either... but who knows? With Lurch flying an S-Bird we might just see that happen one of these days. Besides, James has already proven that you don't die from it :D

I know this is a bit far fetched, but bear with me here...
Picture this:
Wingsuit World Record 2020 (the year JSho becomes president :P)
Jeb rolls in, trailing behind his truck a now-complete big ass ramp... which is collapsible so he carries it around to boogies. We have the assigned landing areas for the various plane groups... but he's special he lands separately... on his big ass ramp.
Should he then be disqualified cause his wingsuit-to-canopy relationship no longer fits the definition?
Just more food for thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a difference between someone doing RW (relative work) in a tight suit and a baggy suit? No, relative work is defined by what they're doing. Is there a difference between someone doing VRW (vertical relative work) in a tight suit and a baggy suit? No, vertical relative work is defined by what they're doing. So why should we define between someone doing HRW (horizontal relative work) in a tracking suit and a wing suit? It's not about what we're wearing, it's about what we're doing ...

Quote

Jeb rolls in, trailing behind his truck a now-complete big ass ramp... which is collapsible so he carries it around to boogies. We have the assigned landing areas for the various plane groups... but he's special he lands separately... on his big ass ramp.
Should he then be disqualified cause his wingsuit-to-canopy relationship no longer fits the definition?



No, but he and everyone else that does a hook turn in the pattern will be in big trouble. :P
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the definition of a wingsuit needs to bear any relevance nor relationship to a canopy.

Any thoughts on specifying the percentage of the portion of the area between arms/legs that are filled with "material/fabric/membrane" to qualify as a wingsuit that might specifically disclude tracking suits or anything similar?

Should the definition specifically disclude hard ribs or other surfaces?
Should a mention of ram air membrane/fabric/envelope be part of the definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

only danger in regards to performance is that its based on the pilot.



No..thats actual performance. Im talking theoretical/design-wise...what can a suit do.

From most wingsuits, the top performance levels they are capable of are quite clear in terms of avg or even minimum. Say 55-ish mph on an EU avg weight/height person. Glide of 1.5 or so.

Even in a classic thats do-able...Trackingsuits how-ever, not.

Thats not a to say you couldnt fly the suit at 90 mph, at a glide of 1:1 or less. But you would merely use the theoretical performance to benchmark/catagorize..
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gecko Take 4ish:

A piece or pieces of equipment used by a person in freefall, comprising flexible material spanning between their arms, torso, and legs, to allow a significant increase in glide ratio and forward movement forming a temporary wing or wings. The wing or wings are primarily supported by the person’s body with a profile changeable by that person in freefall and inflated by the person’s movement through the air. The equipment does not limit the means my which the person may cease their freefall.

1) a piece or pieces i.e. one or more piece wingsuits

2) person in freefall i.e. a skydiver or BASE jumper etc. falling under gravity power so no engine implied. Do not be sport specific then Basic Safety Rules will NOT matter in the definition in my opinion.

3) comprising i.e. what the equipment is made from

4) flexible material i.e. no rigid wing

5) material spanning i.e. it is the material that does the spanning between structural members and no the equipment

6) to allow i.e. recognising that different people will get different performance

7) a significant i.e. a wingsuit can give more, just that, performance over a tracking suit etc. without being numerical

8) glide ratio and forward movement i.e. factors that we look for in a wingsuit

9) temporary i.e. use of flexible material but also something that is not fixed and gravity powered flight can only ever last “so” long

10) wing i.e. a recognised shape/principle with implied characteristics

11) wings i.e. any number of sections of material spanning a persons limbs or body

12) primarily supported i.e. person is the main support without excluding ribs etc.

13) body i.e. not just between the arms and legs so no mono or tri wing issues or material in certain places

14) profile changeable by… i.e. by talking about changing a wing its changes in performance are implied and dependant on the skill of the person.

15) inflated by….. i.e. RAM air principle, implies temporary wing and not rigid, dependant on movement

16) in freefall i.e. further excludes rigid wings etc.

17) person’s movement… i.e. not restricted in direction and excludes pre-pressurisation etc.

18) does not limit…. i.e. method of stopping fall under gravity is not limited (implying canopy access, opening of flaps, use of exoskeleton and ramp etc.)

19) person may….. i.e. we all have a choice on how we freefall or stop it, what size wing which may restrict access or type of canopy we jump etc.

Take that!.....lol
www.gathhelmets.co.uk
www.flyyourbody.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

S-Fly, TonySuits, Birdman, and Phoenix Fly (did I miss anyone?).



is Matter stealing.. i mean selling any wingsuit designs now-a-days? Probably not good to ask them anyways.

How about -
Nitro rigging (aka Nick) is a manufacture. He may not sell many suits, but they are available for purchase over the last 2-3 years (first through EG).

How about just getting a definition from JII wings? I know they don't exist but I'm sure Jacqui can shoot an email off. That was a different suit.

..and don't you remember what I said at the BOD? I'm now a manufacture but no current models are available for sale.

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at the origin of the wingsuit, it's simply a human adaptation of the flying squirrel's form. Wuffos may be clueless about skydiving, but they know exactly what they're seeing when they watch a wingsuit: "It's a flying squirrel suit!"

Why confuse the issue unnecessarily? Call it what it is. Sure we add ram air functionality and airlocks, but these just spruce up the squirrel suit a bit. We have the same goal with our wingsuits: generating lift by moving forward, air moving over spans of fabric (or skin in the squirrel's case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lurch in da house, whatup.

My $.02, food for thought:

3 or 4 years back I did a series of test flights on homemade exoskeletals. Swim fins with fabric, (too floppy, effect like a flying pogo stick, boing, boing, boing...)

Second and last design before I terminated that line of research was snowboard bindings (Thanks J-Sho!!!) and slabs of lexan maybe 18" long, fabric between them. Like rigid swim fins with releases. Integrated into my S-6 Godzilla mod. Flying it was a struggle to survive every time I tried but thats not the point.
If you exclude hybrid rigid/fabric and exoskeletals, then what was it? Was that thing no longer a wingsuit when I attached the rigid skeleton extenders to my feet? Did it turn back into a wingsuit under canopy as soon as I started doing my Houdini act to get that crap off my feet before landing and detached it? It was really fucking strange and such designs have killed pretty much everyone else whove ever attempted to fly them, but I'm pretty sure that thing was a wingsuit. It certainly started life as one.

How big would grippers have to be before they were considered exoskeletals, and thus no longer wingsuits? I've got a couple designs in my head that haven't seen the light of day beyond mockup stage that would fit that description.

If the definition is made too specific and too rigid, it risks excluding things that might self evidently BE wingsuits, just by virtue of being so fucking weird the rigid definition can't be used to describe them.

Same goes for that leather thing I built awhile back. How many rigid parts would it take before the Hardcase wasn't considered a wingsuit anymore?

I'm just sayin'. For defining purposes, I think less is more. We ought to keep it simple.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A definition sent in by PM;
Quote

"A wing suit is is a suit consisting of material between the arms and torso and between the legs. The combined material between the arms and torso and between the legs must have an area equal to or greater than XXX% of the area defined by the height and arm span of the individual wearing the suit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andreea: I'd say Rossy's work was definitely NOT a wingsuit. It was a wing alright, but there was no "suit" in it. Theoretically he could fly that thing naked. Although the elephant in a hurricane action might make that uncomfortable.

I thought about it a bit more and realized if I'd made my lexan thing much bigger, it couldn't have really been called a wingsuit either. By the time maybe half the wing was solid, it'd be some kind of fucked up glider. Or maybe just a crater...

But where do you draw the line? If I'd had half-hard wings in the arms as well, it'd still have been a wingsuit. Or a slightly bigger crater. If 2/3 of the wing area was hard, though, I wouldn't have called it one anymore. Would have been more like a wearable skyboard by that point. Thing is, it would still BE, a wing,suit! Wings plus suit in one piece...what else could you call it?

Doc: I like your definition but I bet its too vague for people who like documentation and neat little boxes. The FAI records people wouldn't like it. Neither would lawyers and legal people, to whom nothing is acceptable unless you've got a 12-page description to define each word.

Which probably explains a lot about our brother Skwrl actually. He is a singular example of his species, and if the other lawyers were aware of his existence, they'd nibble him to death with a hole punch or something. Skwrl is safe, though, because we haven't defined wingsuit. So other lawyers can't see him.
Anyway, its unscientificish, kinda. Besides, its been done. There was some book about a crazy guy on a motorcycle, tried to use that to define "quality" if I remember right.

Spot: That sounds like Mike alright. He's some kind of mathematics superfreak I think. If we ever meet a superior species, he'll be one of the only ones able to speak to them.
Might want to think about that for a second.

Thats actually not bad though. In fact its pretty good. Might want to add "designed for human flight" to it, or something similar though. Otherwise technically a pair of anatomically correct Big Bird footie pajamas might actually qualify.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I shoulda been more clear. That last was sent in by Private Message, not Purple Mike.

Another one sent in by private message:
Quote

"A wingsuit is a suit worn by a parachutist in freefall for the purpose of gliding horizontally, with wings consisting primarily of non-rigid material, that span the gaps between the arms and torso and between the legs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I shoulda been more clear. That last was sent in by Private Message, not Purple Mike.

Another one sent in by private message:

Quote

"A wingsuit is a suit worn by a parachutist in freefall for the purpose of gliding horizontally, with wings consisting primarily of non-rigid material, that span the gaps between the arms and torso and between the legs."



Why shouldn't a definition allow material outside the just the gap between the arms and torso and between the legs. Why wouldn't some % of "material" (semirigid or rigid) be allowed to be outside the gaps between arms and torso and legs.

In other words why shouldn't the definition allow for "some" % of the wingsuit equipment material to be rigid ( like say 25% of the material ) and why not allow that the wingsuit "equipment" be flexible ,semi-rigid or rigid and outside the hands( like grips or winglets on the hands and/or perhaps running along the "outside" of the legs or even beyond the feet ( like Lurch's flippers) and tail wings beyond the legs),...and/or also between the head( or the helmet) and either the arms or hands ? or between the suit and a rig ( ie material "fairings" )

And, what if the wingsuit "equipment" has a means of using the "only' the strength of the flyer's movement of the hands, legs, feet, toes, fingers, head and or chest expansion to provide added pull- chord type tensioning by "leverage" (perhaps running the pull chords around small rigid nylon or metal enclosed pulleys attached to the inside of the suit or attached in some way inside the suit to the torso or rig straps to increase the usable forces the pilot might desire.

And why not allow for Bi-wing capability.....

ALL OF THIS ---AS LONG AS the pilot flyer's body ( their bones, muscles, head, feet, toes, tongue or whatever ) provide the winsuit's core structure and also provide 100% of the eventual load path support for the total forces that are expected to be placed on the wingsuit "equipment" during flight.

And yes,...I "have been" fiddling with designing just such a suit to show to Tony and Jeff someday ---that involves "ALL" of the prior mentioned features...
.... not for flocking but for minimal drag, high forward speed & extended time/distance/low descent speed performance flight using pilot strength and allowing for a transition between such performance and a more relaxed flight. ___( maybe someday the Tony "Stoney-suit" ????
Life is what happens while we are making other plans.

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