0
DSE

What is a wingsuit?

Recommended Posts

Since the IPC discussion group is kludgy at best, and dominated by two people at worst (not to mention it takes days for posts to appear), I'm curious as to what wingsuiters here feel constitutes/defines a "wingsuit??
What is the definition of a wingsuit?
FYB has a definition that seems like a good starting point;
"A piece of equipment that holds fabric in place between a skydiver's arms and legs (ram air inflated wings), creating the
possibility for sustained forward movement through the air. The skydiver's body forms the only frame for the wings of the suit (no external, rigid frames). No propulsion other than gravity"


There is some debate over use of the word "material" vs "fabric" in the IPC discussion.

Discuss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is from Wikipedia:
Quote

Wingsuit flying is the sport of flying the human body through the air using a special jumpsuit, called a wingsuit, that shapes the human body into an airfoil which can create lift. The wingsuit creates the airfoil with fabric between the legs and under the arms.



But there is no clear separation between tracking suits, hybrids and wing suits....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like all posts are checked before being made public..

Material is too generic, a wingsuit IMO is made from a "flexible" fabric.

The tracking suit one is tricky, i added something about the fabric being stretched between the torso and arms/legs but this does not exclude all TSs out there.

For that maybe we need to specify a minimum surface area (height dependent)?
BASEstore.it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the use of the body forming the only framework... but does that then preclude the use of batten stiffeners ever?

Also what is the definition of Fabric? - Is this always made from a woven thread - so sheet 'plastics' could never be used?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a definition of a wingsuit would be to include a performance estemate/capability as a manditory aspect.

That would exclude a lot of trackingsuits/camerasuits, yet not exclude single-skin/rubber/latex wingsuit models..?
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think

there is no deed to define what is wingsuit or not. What should be defined is the flight angle of the flying formation. Wingsuit formation should fly properly. Falling in a group is not flying. There is another discipline for that.
- No mercy in the flock! Straighten your legs!!! -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"… The skydiver's body forms the only frame for the wings of the suit (no external, rigid frames)… "


Based on this definition, the rigid wingtip grippers on some models might be used as a basis for exclusion as a WS.

While I agree strapping a fiberglass wing on your back should not be considered a wingsuit, maybe we need to have a defined, allowable limit for rigid components of the WS held by hand to properly tension the wing…?

Thanks Spot for all you’re doing for all of us!
Z-Flock 8
Discotec Rodriguez

Too bad weapons grade stupidity doesn't lead to sterility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"… The skydiver's body forms the only frame for the wings of the suit (no external, rigid frames)… "


Based on this definition, the rigid wingtip grippers on some models might be used as a basis for exclusion as a WS.



great point! how about the mylar ribs in some suits? could those be used for exclusion as well under this type of definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for posting this. Although the IPC forum may be a bit clunky, it is inaccurate to say that the IPC discussion group is "dominated by two people". Anyone can sign up and post. Yes, the posts are moderated, but that is because the IPC forum is not meant to duplicate the function of dropzone.com; it is meant to provide a public place where more "finished" ideas/proposals can be posted for everyone to see. Please have patience with the three working group members who are tasked with moderating there. Here is the link to the wingsuit definition thread on the IPC forum.

The current working definition is:

Quote

A piece of equipment that spans material between a skydiver's arms and torso, and between their legs, creating the possibility for sustained 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 is a hybrid of language from S-Fly, TonySuits, Birdman, James Boole's 2008 presentation to the IPC, myself, and Jarno.

All of the wingsuit manufacturers have been united in wanting a minimal definition that allows for flexibility in future design.

The use of "material" is less specific than "fabric" because we don't want to exclude suits with stiffeners using foam, mylar, etc. The word "majority" of the frame allows for the rigid gripper extensions that many suits now have.

The reason for defining a wingsuit is, essentially, to define our discipline. A wingsuit record of any kind (time, distance, linked formations, unlinked formations) as well as competition formats (artistic, etc.) requires that we know what a wingsuit is.
It's the Year of the Dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The reason for defining a wingsuit is, essentially, to define our discipline. A wingsuit record of any kind (time, distance, linked formations, unlinked formations) as well as competition formats (artistic, etc.) requires that we know what a wingsuit is.


Well, well, it seems the only way to go is defining this discipline by the equipment in use, best trackers can easily outperform a lousy wing suit flier even in solo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think

there is no deed to define what is wingsuit or not. What should be defined is the flight angle of the flying formation. Wingsuit formation should fly properly. Falling in a group is not flying. There is another discipline for that.



I like this in theory, basically saying if you and your friends can fly your RW/Tracking suits at 2:1, then you can get a WS record. But the problem I see is measuring glide is too hard. GPS is useless without knowledge of the airmass movement, and the alternatives are tools like Yuri's recording bubble-vane-angle detector.

You also must address Tracking Derby style comps, where a diving start and plane out is used to improve glide results.
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thanks for posting this. Although the IPC forum may be a bit clunky, it is inaccurate to say that the IPC discussion group is "dominated by two people". Anyone can sign up and post. Yes, the posts are moderated, but that is because the IPC forum is not meant to duplicate the function of dropzone.com; it is meant to provide a public place where more "finished" ideas/proposals can be posted for everyone to see. Please have patience with the three working group members who are tasked with moderating there. Here is the link to the wingsuit definition thread on the IPC forum.



There aretwo people that have posted multiple times, plus a couple of other posts.
More posts from a source=Domination. Nothing inaccurate about that at all. Perhaps impolitic, but so much is these days darlin.'
Be "patient" with the 3 IPC people that are moderating?
It'll only take 9-30 days for posts to be seen, of course, but it'll eventually get there.
Once it's been censored.[:/]
Or not posted at all because one of the advisory members objects to it.B|

Anyway...how about we actually stick to the subject at hand, in a thread that can't be controlled by anyone in or out of this thread?
First we define wingsuits
Move on to defining "forward motion"
Then we define glide ratio/flight relationships
Next we define "distance" relationships.
Once we define those factors, we can begin to define parameters of competition even though the USPA already has done so.

How about:

A piece of equipment that spans material between a skydiver's arms, torso, and legs, creating the possibility for sustained 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I like this in theory, basically saying if you and your friends can fly your RW/Tracking suits at 2:1, then you can get a WS record. But the problem I see is measuring glide is too hard.



There's been some discussion about what happens if you get Loic flying in a wingsuit formation wearing nothing but shorts and keeping up with people flying X-Birds. :D Is it still a wingsuit record?

Just as an added point, there will later be the opportunity to talk about parameters of what makes a no-contact wingsuit formation record. One of the parameters we can discuss is a minimum glide ratio. I don't know if I favor this, since as you pointed out, measurement is tough, but just for reference, we can talk about it even after a wingsuit has been defined.
It's the Year of the Dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You also must address Tracking Derby style comps, where a diving start and plane out is used to improve glide results.


You seem to know a sh1t about it.

Quote

Time window jumping from 4000 M / 13 000 Ft :

* The race starts 15 seconds after exit to minimize the airplane's projection effect.
* Suit category : The race stops 45 seconds after race start.
All kind of jump clothing welcomed ! Slick, RW, Free Fly, Track pants, Track suits or others. The race stops in case of deployment and if altitude gets lower than 2666 Ft / 800 M while free falling.
* Wingsuit category : The race stops 90 seconds after race start.
All kind of custom or manufactured Wingsuit welcomed. The race stops in case of deployment and if altitude gets lower than 3333 Ft / 1000 M while free falling.



There are other competitions where scoring window is defined just by the altitude like 3000-1500m or 2500-1500m. A diving start can make a bigger difference there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're absolutely right that salient points here should get discussed and then posted to the IPC side. Anyone can do this. Anyone can sign up for the IPC forum. It's for everyone. It's just not meant to duplicate what dropzone.com does - i.e., what we are doing right now :)
Jarno and I are trying to find out whether we can get a confirmed schedule for when moderation will happen (hopefully with a fairly quick or a least regular turnaround) on the IPC site. There's a pretty big difference between moderation and censorship. No one is censoring anything on the IPC site.

Back to our on-topic discussion!
It's the Year of the Dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sceduling the IPC WG/Jacqui has for moderation is mondays.
The people that emailed me the last 2 days asking about this, expect your posts to show up uppon the next moderating session after the weekend.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A piece of equipment that spans material between a skydiver's arms, torso, and legs, creating the possibility for sustained 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.



I would like to suggest an alternative to DSE's suggestion:

A piece or pieces of equipment with flexible material that spans between a skydiver's arms, torso, and legs creating the possibility for sustained forward movement powered by gravity only. The equipment is inflated by the forward movement with the skydiver's body forming the primary frame for the equipment. The inflated equipment is capable of being deflated or mechanically released by the skydiver, at least in part, to aid manoeuvrability and safety at all times.


Thoughts, ignoring performance criteria:
1) Need to allow for 1 or 2 piece wingsuits
2) “Flexible material” to exclude rigid wings
3) Tried to shorten long first sentence and suggest keeping whole definition to 3 sentences min/max.
3) Reference to “spans between” arms, torso and legs already excludes tracking and camera suits, in my opinion so TICK.
4) “Equipment inflation” from forward movement (instead of “spanning material from….”) to not differentiate between mono or tri-wing designs or be RAM Air specific with skins etc. The reference to “from forward movement” also excludes inflation devices or systems such as compressed air canisters etc.
5) I like the use of the word “frame” like an “airframe” so TICK
6) I would like to see reference to collapsibility or releaseability of the “wingsuit” by the skydiver for safety and acrobatics etc. (i.e. not specific in terms of cables or zips and which wings or the amount that is colapsed or released).

What do people think, especially about 6)?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

A piece of equipment that spans material between a skydiver's arms, torso, and legs, creating the possibility for sustained 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.



I would like to suggest an alternative to DSE's suggestion:

A piece or pieces of equipment with flexible material that spans between a skydiver's arms, torso, and legs creating the possibility for sustained forward movement powered by gravity only. The equipment is inflated by the forward movement with the skydiver's body forming the primary frame for the equipment. The inflated equipment is capable of being deflated or mechanically released by the skydiver, at least in part, to aid manoeuvrability and safety at all times.


Thoughts, ignoring performance criteria:
1) Need to allow for 1 or 2 piece wingsuits
2) “Flexible material” to exclude rigid wings
3) Tried to shorten long first sentence and suggest keeping whole definition to 3 sentences min/max.
3) Reference to “spans between” arms, torso and legs already excludes tracking and camera suits, in my opinion so TICK.
4) “Equipment inflation” from forward movement (instead of “spanning material from….”) to not differentiate between mono or tri-wing designs or be RAM Air specific with skins etc. The reference to “from forward movement” also excludes inflation devices or systems such as compressed air canisters etc.
5) I like the use of the word “frame” like an “airframe” so TICK
6) I would like to see reference to collapsibility or releaseability of the “wingsuit” by the skydiver for safety and acrobatics etc. (i.e. not specific in terms of cables or zips and which wings or the amount that is colapsed or released).

What do people think, especially about 6)?

Gecko



Great food for thought!
I do not understand why the IPC has taken the silly approach that performance doesn't matter. Without having forward motion as some component, a "flock" could merely fall straight down whilst wearing a wingsuit. Since the skydivers are wearing wingsuits, it would qualify as a wingsuit skydive, even if they're moving backwards or straight down.

Do y'all feel that a component of performance motion should be added to a definition of the wingsuit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

suggest keeping whole definition to 3 sentences min/max.



Its more important to be as thourough and complete as possible, than being brief.
A definition set within IPC now, shouldnt hinder or (negativly) influence the possibility of non-wingsuit atire in other potential competition and/or record diciplines related to wingsuit flying.

Quote

Reference to “spans between” arms, torso and legs already excludes tracking and camera suits.



The matter tracer and presurized trackingsuits would urgueably fall in the wingsuit catagory by that standard..

Quote

I would like to see reference to collapsibility or releaseability of the “wingsuit” by the skydiver for safety



Safety features are related to suit design/manufacturers.
If people fly a tight 9 way in full wingsuits without any form of emergency arm-release or cutaway, why would it not be a wingsuit formation?

I understand the reasoning, but this is more BSR stuff.
Regardless, all good points and ideas.
If you want these taken into account by the IPC voting members, post your thoughts on the IPC forum so they will be seen.

Taya and I are reading all information here, but for your voice to be heard by the IPC, make sure you post it where the read it..B|

*edit* fixed incorrect use of quote functionality *edit*
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I do not understand why the IPC has taken the silly approach that performance doesn't matter. Without having forward motion as some component, a "flock" could merely fall straight down whilst wearing a wingsuit. Since the skydivers are wearing wingsuits, it would qualify as a wingsuit skydive, even if they're moving backwards or straight down.

Do y'all feel that a component of performance motion should be added to a definition of the wingsuit?



I asked myself the same question, but then again... we are not yet discussing the definition of a "flock", just the definition of a "wingsuit".

the way I understand from Taya and Jarno's posts, we are first defining a wingsuit... then we are going to define a wingsuit formation... then a wingsuit formation record... everything in incremental steps like that.

for the purpose of the "wingsuit" definition, a wingsuit is still a wingsuit even if you're flying it headdown with your freefly buddies... that head down jump shouldn't really be a flock... but the wingsuit that is worn still remains a wingsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Jarno,

How's tricks?

Quote

more important to be as thorough and complete as possible



I totally agree but I wanted to set a set a target, for others to aim at, based upon what has been written before.

Quote

matter tracer and presurized trackingsuits


Matter call the Tracer a wingsuit and Pressurized say the TwentyG has wings, so I'm not sure I can totally win this argument......lol.
http://www.matterclothing.com/products/wingsuit-tracer.htm
http://www.pressurized.at/products/twentyg/

Therefore, do we need to define a "wingsuit" with a minimum wing or surface area?

I think a cleverer definition may be required than I thought to include performance, to some degree.

Quote

Safety features are related to suit design/manufacturers



I agree, however, we are skydivers first so must be able to control and land our parachutes and deal with canopy emergencies etc. Therefore, an implied requirement on all wingsuit manufacturers is to have a wing release mechanism, so shouldn't that be part of the wingsuit definition (at present)??!!

A stretchy or slidable arm wing, to allow you to reach upwards for risers or toggles, would change the profile of wing causing deflation I think, hence, my chosen words.

My words, which I would be only too delighted to have improved by anyone, also try into imply the need for "physical access" for safely getting to a cliff top or into an aeroplane and balloon etc.

Recognised techniques for getting out of a flat spin are balling-up or tracking-out requiring the skydiver to be able to collapse their wings, hence, my statement. Would a statement along the lines of the “skydiver having the ability to control the symmetry of the equipment” be better?

Quote

this is more BSR stuff


Sorry, I don't recognise this abbreviation. What is BSR?

With respect to posting on the IPC, I just wanted to embarrass myself in public, amongst peers, to get all my ducks in a row, before presenting anything to a higher power!

Ross

*edited to improve counter arguements*;)
www.gathhelmets.co.uk
www.flyyourbody.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Recognised techniques for getting out of a flat spin are balling-up or tracking-out requiring the skydiver to be able to collapse their wings, hence, my statement. Would a statement along the lines of the “skydiver having the ability to control the symmetry of the equipment” be better?



not sure that the "that which doesn't kill you" should be part of the definition. this is subject to the pilot's skill. you see good flyers do aerobatics in a suit like the XS/X-Bird... that's no toy... in the wrong hands that can be very bad... but flown with enough skill, you can roll it without collapsing it but flying through the transitions. after all, you can do aerobatics in a plane without collapsing it.
who knows how far wingsuit technology will advance in another few years? we might not want to impose requirements related to how you get out of flatspins with it. after all, records should be made with people who fly really well... who will not flatspin out the door on a bigway exit and hit half their team on their way down...

Quote

this is more BSR stuff


Sorry, I don't recognise this abbreviation. What is BSR?



Basic Safety Requirement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, SG! Big Kiss.

Okay, you don't need to collapse for acrobatics but for fault situation recovery you do at the moment.

Therefore, is manipulation of the equipment by the skydiver to "recover from being unsymetrical" a BSR? I think the answer to that is yes at the moment. Therefore, shouldn't it be in the definition at the moment or in "a beginner category of wingsuits"? Ditto, releasing of wings?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we're starting to move from what is a wingsuit, to what is wingsuiting. This is also why the performace of the wingsuit doesnt really mean anything at this point. Those types of definitions will likely be activity related anyway. is a proximity wingsuiters wingsuit less of a wingsuit if he has smaller wings in order to suck down to the terrain because he's not going for l/d?

I dont think all suits have cutwaways, so I dont think it'd be appropriate to include it in the definition.

same thing with pilot ability, doesnt really have any effect on if what your flying is a wingsuit.

I guess we could include intent in the definition. Might rule out something like a camera suit that while it has wings, forward movement its not its intent?

ei

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.


I dont think it would rule out something like vertical wingsuit flight, as the design of the suit is still primarily to assist in forward flight or movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A further thought.......

Quote

If people fly a tight 9 way in full wingsuits without any form of emergency arm-release or cutaway, why would it not be a wingsuit formation?



This is still a wingsuit, without question, but a wingsuit ten years ago etc.

My analogy would be that of a motor car.......

If you asked anyone to define a car 20-30 years ago, or a hundred years ago, it would be "internal combustion engine which drives a number of wheels for movement, mounted on a chassis with at least 4, with the ability for a person to turn the wheels for directional control whilst sat in the chassis."

Since the introduction of governance, regulations and technological developments cars have evolved (read doors, roofs, key ignition etc.). A manufacturer, today, cannot think about designing, building and selling a car without BSRs such as brakes, lights and horns. Airbags, ABS, SatNav, radio are all optional features that can be ignored etc.

Therefore, I think the definition of a wingsuit needs to somehow take into account BSRs as set out by the governance/physics of skydiving (need for canopy control/safety) that we have today. I recognise that BASE is not regulated and can be justified as a different sport but we all need to control our canopies safely!

What do others think?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0