Bluhdow

In related news, Tony Suits is doing a lot of work it looks like. New website, new suits coming out in this category (R-Bird Pro 2, Hog). It's really cool to see them making a comeback (at least here on the west coast, I'm sure they've always been present in FL). The USA has re-entered the wingsuit World Brand Wars!

If you follow the Sq "Paths of Progression" by the minimums they can be quick. For example: Freestyle: Gus/S3 (0-5 WS jumps), Funk 3 (50 jumps), ATC 2 (75 jumps), Freak 3 (175 jumps) Obviously they are minimums, and most jumpers are likely being encouraged to spend as much time as possible on a suit before upsizing, but if you follow this recommendation you've bought 4 new suits inside 175 jumps. From what I've seen though, most jumpers move a bit slower than this for a variety of reasons.

I would find a cheap Sabre1 170 and put a pocket slider on it. I've been wingsuiting a Sabre1 135 at about 1.4 for a few years now. No cutaways, no issues, lands like a real ZP sky canopy. Love it!

I have owned/own a Freak 1/Rafale, and flown with Freak2s, ATCs, and Strixes. My observations: The Strix 1 is really more on level with an ATC in terms of performance. I would imagine that those two are pretty comparable in terms of performance and acro ability. The Rafale is far ahead of where my Freak 1 was, but appears to be very similar to Freak 2 in performance based on my experience flying with these suits. I think that PF and Sq get to the same level of performance and acro ability with their suits in different ways: PF will ask you to deal with a little more fabric, but in return provides a wing with less pressure and a little smoother handling. My Rafale is more forgiving of a sloppy transition than my F1 was. Sq gives you a wing with less fabric, but asks you to deal with a little more pressure and a little more tendency to smack you when you aren't transitioning smoothly. I think it's personal preference. All are good suits and all (ATC/Strix 1 and 2/F series/Rafale) fly together comfortably. If you can get a sweet deal on a Strix, it's probably worth it. And there are likely to be more available since the Strix 2 is now being delivered.

You might consider looking for a used Epicene then. The used market is always pretty flush with inexpensive sq gear, and might be worth trying for the right price. I'd guess that most people getting a sponsored Epicene Pro will be looking to unload their old canopy.

Let's get this thread back on track, eh? Weather permitting I'll get to fly it this weekend. Fit is perfect, per usual, with PF (in my experience, 4 suits so far). Robi was kind enough to build a hybrid version with partial UL construction, and partial non-UL for durability. Basically everything interior (pockets, liners, ribs, etc.) is UL material with the exterior (when zipped up) being standard fabric for more durability and longevity while skydiving. For me it's a great balance between lightweight (for BASE) and durability (in the sky). If it flies half as good as it looks and feels I'll be a very happy camper.

Just wait until next year for the Hayduke 2.

Just wait until next year for the Epicene Pro Two.

Conclusion: 1. I will still let you know how my Rafale compares to my Freak once it arrives. 2. All modern suit designs are basically Tony Suits from the "Bird" series. 3. Marketing has become a thing in this industry for better or worse. Sounds to me a lot like every other industry as it matures. I mean, what are the fundamental differences between a Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla...really?

There hasn't been any "interesting developments" in wingsuits in about a decade. In about 15 years, L/D increased only by 20% (from 2.5 of V-4 back in 2004 to 3.0 of mattresses; and it's been stuck at 3.0 flat for years now). The prevailing planform is pretty much the same T-design of about 10 years ago. L/D improved mostly due to trivially increased surface area. Dramatic improvement in flare is mostly an automatic consequence of this modest improvement in L/D (flare - effective conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy - is very sensitive to L/D increase). Increased internal pressure is nice for ease of flying, but has virtually no effect on aerodynamics, as long as it's enough to shape the wing (and it was enough 15 years ago in "soft" suits). The multi-million $$$ wingsuit industry is as stagnant as some swamp in Florida. The only thing that is skyrocketing is the marketing. Any new minuscule iteration is presented as a revolutionary breakthrough. "Buy buy buy... we want your $$$... $2K at a time." Winner winner chicken dinner! +1

Different manufacturers will always have different design priorities and philosophies, and then proclaim that their unique balance of design elements has generated the best overall product. In the end it's all subjective and there is no "best wingsuit." There are only "different wingsuits" that make different compromises to achieve (what the manufacturer believes to be) the best overall balance of performance. The best suit for person A will not always be, nor will it ever always be, the best suit for persons B-Z. When Squirrel first hit the scene they pushed back against stiff leading edges, with toggle access being paramount for safety. Over time they have become less rigid (pun!) on this point and moved toward the performance benefits of stiffer leading edges. Thus the narrative evolved from "toggle access" to "riser control." I think they have tried to marry these two narratives with removable foam and variable levels of leading edge stiffness which is a good idea. That said I own a Freak and cannot access my toggles without unzipping. I have no problem with this, at all. For me riser access is adequate and worth the benefits of a more solid leading edge. I also own two different PF suits and have found the riser access on these suits to be similar to my Freak even with their stiffer PF leading edges. On the leading edge I think the design philosophies between PF and Squirrel are converging. I think the biggest difference in design styles is fit. Squirrel suits seem to pressurize more and fit relatively loosely...especially through the torso. The PF is philosophy is that a tighter fit allows for more precise inputs and control. One could argue (I think fairly) that precision is in and of itself a safety feature. At the end of the day, all of the modern suits are really good. I don't think you can go wrong with anything from the major manufacturers.

I should have my Rafale in the near future. Upgrading from a Freak 1, for what it’s worth. I can let you know that comparison after I get some jumps on it. My hope is that the Rafale will provide more power in the BASE environment while still being fun, like the Freak, in the sky.

Eh...kind of. I would say that the PC is one of the smallest contributors to the quality of your opening. Like...probably dead last after a whole lot of other way more important factors like body position, airspeed, canopy selection, bridle length...etc. All things being equal, it might matter a little. But for the vast majority of people as long as your PC is in good condition and lacking an overly heavy handle it will work just fine. Most people would be better served taking that $200 and paying a coach to help them with their deployment technique for a day.

Pretty much all modern containers work. Nine foot bridles are important, longer containers are nice, docile 9 cell canopies work well and if you're a WS-only jumper then 7 cells have their advantages. As for pilot chutes, you could tie a plastic grocery bag to the end of your bridle and the canopy would come out. An overly heavy hackey is undesirable, but other than that you're good to go. I personally like to tape over the open holes of the PVC designs to prevent finger stick-age, but if you're comfortable with a certain (not super heavy) PC handle then roll with it.

Official answer: Coaching is always better when it's an option. Real world answer: With that experience a classic TS should be no problem. Enjoy!