0
mariobat

Lazy Bag

Recommended Posts

Ive got about 600 jumps on the mpod without a single twist, turn or even offheading opening. Fit is important, making sure its notto tight. But nothing but praise from here.
Most wingsuit flyers in this region use it with similar results.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lazy bag is a bag with tuc-tabs and magnets. The Mpod is only magnets. PD also has their variations, with 2 stows at the end (which id prefer to see as one central locking stow, to illiminate the zig/zag motion of the bag on deployment).

The Mpod and Lazy bag both need to have a good fit for the canopy, hence they are custom made to fit. The fit in the container is like any type of bag. The way you prefer your rig to be.


In case the bag is too tight, or its not packed proper (magnets not all alligned on top of eachother) the canopy can potentialy come out prematurely. Ive had that happen once after a packer closed it who (i guess) hadnt closed it properly.
Although even there it didnt matter much as the lines are in a seperate pocket, so even with the canopy coming out prematurely, you basically get an opening comparable to one with a tailpocket. The lines still cleanly coming out, with the friction of the pocket guiding them cleanly to linestretch.

www.pgasus.be has more information on the MPOD and measuring instructions.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi, somebody is using Lazy Bag or MPOD in her rig?
Any problem? Not suggested in WS jumps?

Thanks
Mario




Check out the threads on stowless bags for feedback and comments on all the bags like this out there.:)
"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
Interesting. I've been teaching a tweaked packjob with short stows and about 1/3 of the lineset freestowed in a coil in the bottom of the container for wingsuiting to create the same effect. Keeps the plucking action on the bag to a minimum with the small line bites, and since the bag has already accelerated to high speed by the time it hits the first stow, theres no time for the bag to twist. Theres just a quick staccato pop and its open. Sort of like deliberately inducing line dump except the stows are still releasing in order. On camera it looks a lot like a B.A.S.E opening, no snivel at all, just a nice solid pop-whump and its open.
Worst twists I've had in years has been a single self-correcting 180 with risers crossed behind my head, twice, one of those because I was dumb enough to pack myself a stepthrough. Sucker landed just fine anyway.

I had some guy at my home dz start "holding forth" about how packjob has nothing to do with twists and its all body position, apparently with no experiments experience or science to back it up.
I love skygods. I pointed out that I developed this technique specifically to combat twists, and when I came up with this packjob my twist rate was about 1 in 5 jumps, multiple twists every time, which has been reduced to 0/1000 ever since, no matter how I screw up my body position on opening. He shut up.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Interesting. I've been teaching a tweaked packjob with short stows and about 1/3 of the lineset freestowed in a coil in the bottom of the container for wingsuiting to create the same effect.



You do know that this increases the risk of lines getting wrapped around flaps? The theory is that the flaps move back to the center when the bag has passed. With short unstowed lines the flaps hit the risers, with longer they hit lines that are moving around. If one is unlucky a knot can form around the flap and you get a canopy in tow. Of course most containers have had their flaps designed to make this even more unlikely.

I had some problems with line twists as well, but I only increased the unstowed line length slightly (to around 30cm) and it went away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, I've heard of this idea before and I'll grant its theoretically possible but is it a significant risk? Not too sure I'll buy that unless the deployment was SO slow and SO sloppy that it actually allowed lines to flop around loosely enough to toss a loop around a flap and then pull tight.

The lines are coming from inside. So the line would, against physics and airflow, have to toss a loop of itself around part of the -outside- of the flap. And then hang on it. This strikes me as about as likely as throwing my pilot chute and having it snag on my chest strap.

Plus which as you pointed out the rig is designed not to snag. The flaps are roughly triangular and I keep a close eye on my grommets for that reason. Near as I can tell the odds of this happening are damn near nonexistent unless I created some bizarre circumstance such as a trashed pilot chute and such a weak throw that the Dbag could barely lift off and there was a mess of loose line over the opening rig. And even then I'd be more worried about a baglock if my deployment physics were THAT weak, bag arrives at end of lines with no enthusiasm and then just sits there bobbling around on the first stow... not gonna happen unless I REALLY screw up dramatically somehow.

I used to leave much less line but for wingsuit, especially the fallrates I specialize in, it was a major issue. My rig is tight enough that risers snagging against the edges of the reserve tray were also a factor.

Still, good that you brought it up, got me thinking about failure modes. Can you show me an incident or two where a canopy in tow has happened because of excess line? On a modern gear configuration? And if so what was the gear config and circumstances? And can you prove that any such was caused by being packed that way and not by, say, poor gear maintenance and snagging a grommet or loose bit of flap edge/frayed stitch? I'm not trying to be a testy dink here, but if I'm gonna buy that this is a significant risk or any real risk at all I'd like to see that risk quantified somehow... applicable comparisons, similar incidents in the past.

Although I am aware of canopy in tow happening, all such incidents I've ever heard of involved things like really bad grommets or frayed half-unstitched flaps or something, multiple risk factors adding up like skinny HMA lines PLUS a peeling grommet. If I had to put a number on it, my extra 18 inches of unstowed line increases the potential window for this mal from, (wild ass guess) .03 seconds to more like .05 seconds. To the best of my knowledge this simply isn't even close to enough of a risk to worry about. Like getting struck by lightning.
-B

-afterthought: I'd lay any amount of money you care to name on a bet that if I tried, I couldn't make this mal happen even on the ground. Even by deliberately -putting- a loop around a flap, pulling the loop tight, and then pulling it away trying to snag it.
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My solution has been simply to use very light tension on the bands and 18" freestow below the bag. The only real tension is at the locking stows and they're not awfully tight particularly the outside/corner stows.

I also found that using linesets that weren't badly out of trim helped a lot. :P

Sometimes you eat the bear..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:P My lineset is NOT out of trim.
The suggestion DOES kinda make me want to do some ground experiments and really see if I can make a snag happen. Theres a world of difference between "astronomically improbable" and "impossible". There IS a square edged tuck tab on this rig meaning it IS possible to tie a knot of line around part of the outer container.

Its just that given the geometry, time and physics of the event I judge it so insanely improbable as to be the next best thing to impossible. No reason not to check it out, though. I might learn something. I've seen a few things that were exactly that insanely improbable happen anyway. So I REALLY hesitate to use the word "can't" as in "that can't happen." Reality is a prankster. Every time somebody says that, it happens.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both seem to have the same effect (center feed of the line, no tumble of the bag). Mostly differing in packing, with (for me) the Pgasus one seemingly easiest to pack. In terms of weight, I think the LazyBag is a bit lighter, so that may be some preference as well. But the big tuctabs (again, to me) just seemed a bit too much of a hassle in packing.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...In terms of weight, I think the LazyBag is a bit lighter...


Yes, LazyBag is lighter than mPOD, but only of a very small amount, in a way that you can hardly say "mPOD is heavier that LazyBag".
I found on eBay neodimium magnet 20x20x3 mm - 9.1 g - 4.2 kg attraction force that "should" be what are used in the mPOD.
So, an mPOD has got 12 neodimium magnets and so the 12 magnet contribute to increase the weight of the mPOD of: 12 x 9.1 g = 109.2 g, let's say 110 g = 0.11 kg for semplicity.
So mPOD is 110 g heavier of an (hypotethical) ; for example, a standard POD comes with 4 grommets that weigh (lets' say) 5g/each, that is 20 g total.
Lazy bag comes with 2 grommets (10 g) plus some "extra" (with respect to standard POD) weight due to the tuck tabs, how much? 10 g? This makes 20 g heavier with respect to a .
So, in the end, when our PC at terminal has got a pulling force of 20 kg to 30 kg (to extract pin and lift bag with canopy inside), pulling an extra weight of 90 g = 0.09 kg is simply a neglectable issue :)Just my 0.02 €
P.S.: Yes, I have got an mPOD of which I am very happy about B| first times jolly difficult :( to close mPOD down (completely deflate parachute etc etc and keep first 8 magnets in position etc etc) but after alittle bit of practice, it makes packing into the mPOD quite pleasant and a won challenge :)
Stay safe out there
Blue Skies and Soft Walls
BASE #689 - base_689AT_NO_123_SPAMyahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The lazybag also has magnets. Only less as its only the line-pocket that uses them.


It means lazybag has got 8 magnets instead of 12 of mPOD.
So the weight of lazybag and the weight of mPOD are very, very similar :)
Stay safe out there
Blue Skies and Soft Walls
BASE #689 - base_689AT_NO_123_SPAMyahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Has anybody psycho packed an mPod?


No, I do a packing which involves 5 layers folded in S-fashion.
In any case, when you order an mPOD, you have to write the manufaturer, type and size of parachute PLUS the 3 dimensions (width, height and "thickness") of your present POD, and I think the manufacturer does build up an mPOD that, when closed with magnets, has got the exact same dimensions as your original POD.
The problem is that with normal POD you can deflate parachute "so-and-so" and in any case you start putting folded parachute into the POD and you can continue deflating it with the locking stows kept in position by rubber bands.
Packing into the mPOD, you MUST deflate the parachute MUCH BETTER because if you don't deflate the parachute the magnets CANNOT keep the lid closed.
Once you pay attention to deflate your parachute at the best you can, then packing into the mPOD becomes easy again.
Stay safe out there
Blue Skies and Soft Walls
BASE #689 - base_689AT_NO_123_SPAMyahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The lines are coming from inside. So the line would, against physics and airflow, have to toss a loop of itself around part of the -outside- of the flap. And then hang on it. This strikes me as about as likely as throwing my pilot chute and having it snag on my chest strap.



During opening the flaps open up and then bounce back to the middle so they can come in contact with the lines, unless the lines have already been moved away.

As far as it has happened, I'm not old enough to remember when it was common to have longer, unstowed lines, but some of the larger Wings containers had a SB three years ago because of the design of one of the flaps and two incidents with canopies in tow. That was not because of the grommets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Has anybody psycho packed an mPod? My normal bag has a slightly different packed shape now compared to when I used to pro pack it. Would this make a difference in using the mPod?



Not sure about the mPOD - however, I use a UPT semi-stowless bag on both of my rigs, and have psycho-packed a Sabre2-135, Safire-119, Pilot-104, and Crossfire2-105 in them with no problems.

As far as sizing goes, as someone else pointed out, you just go ahead and measure your current bag, and they make you a replacement.

The bagging itself is pretty much the same - its just the stows that are different.
Signatures are the new black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I started wingsuiting a few months ago and was PLAGUED with line twist...Warren at ChutingStar converted my D bag to a lazy bag by sewing a flap with 2 magnets on it. Smooth, Nice, No line twist openings. Having read here how much people like it and after talking to a rigger that uses a lazy bag I thought I'd give it a shot. Works better than I ever thought it could!
JMTCW

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