Bluhdow

I'll take the under. I know someone who has been trying to sell one (barely) used for a few months with zero interest. It's just too small of a market. How many people are in a situation where they need a large, free-packed BASE main and a tiny 100+/- PD optimum reserve? I think this Aurora is a bit better in that sense. But if what they say (strictly WS only) is to be believed then who is going to buy it? People who wingsuit 100% exclusively (which is rare in my experience) and people who can afford to have a second WS dedicated rig. The second scenario is less rare...but in order to justify an Aurora over a Javelin, Mirage, or any other normal rig it has to be a significantly better design for wingsuiting. Otherwise why not just buy a normal container with a long bridle? It will have better resale value and more range of use. Personally, I think manufacturers are going a bit overboard with "WS specific" designs. Are they better for wingsuiting? Sure, but by how much? My Mirage and original Sabre work really well for everything from big suits, to tracking suits, to freeflying, to belly jumps. Apex BASE #1816

Smart move. They shrunk their potential market by about 90% with that statement. Apex BASE #1816

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Literally every post Virgin-Burner has ever written has been bashing Squirrel, orally copulating PF, or both. Can we just ban him from the wingsuit forum? We already know exactly what he's going to say, in every thread, up until wingsuits go the way of skysurfing. In related news, when skysurfing comes back PF will obviously make the best boards and Squirrel will do nothing more than produce sh*tty Vietnamese copies. Just wanted to clear that up in advance. Apex BASE #1816

I had around 500 WS jumps all on PF suits (except for 2 jumps on an X-Bird) when I bought my Freak. The Freak was the first Squirrel suit I've ever flown and I cannot echo the sentiment above. I love mine. It's got more speed, power, and range than my Venom Power and flies with speed and power on its back marvelously. It's true that it wants to be maxed out on its back. It's not a Havok, but I don't think it's designed to be. If I'm going to join a group flock on my back with an array of different suits I'd grab my Havok. Almost any other situation and my Freak would be the suit of choice. Can't speak for the Stryx. Haven't flown it. Apex BASE #1816

It's totally possible, you'll just need about 10,000 more jumps to get on the Skydive Dubai squad. And by that time you'll know why using sky gear makes no sense. Good luck! Apex BASE #1816

Yeah, a fair point and one I've considered. We'll see how the technology advances in the coming years and all progress should be cheered, of course. I'm sure it can eventually be a very positive tool for wingsuiting (and maybe angle flying) as the tunnels get better, bigger, and more affordable. I'm just not ready to bend over for that $23.50 (plus coaching) per minute pounding just yet. Apex BASE #1816

Honestly...I don't get it. I could see the appeal to someone who doesn't actually wingsuit to get a feel for what it's like. Or maybe eventually it can safely be combined with some VR technology for a real-ish experience. But why would any experienced wingsuiters ever want to fly in it? Especially if it costs anywhere near what normal tunnel time costs. Unless they make a much, much larger version there's not much room for any real movement or skill building. Just kind of...hovering. Vertical tunnels provide a lot of value as freefly training tools. I don't know that these angled tunnels will be quite as valuable in that respect. It just seems a bit gimmicky. Now...maybe they will be valuable for R&D purposes. But I'm not really qualified to speculate on their importance there. Apex BASE #1816

This combined with your interest in BASE jumping might suggest a Squirrel Epicene. My understanding is that it has some characteristics of a BASE wing (F-111, 7 cells, positive openings). Full disclosure: I've never flown one. Apex BASE #1816

Very helpful, thank you! Apex BASE #1816

I've been told that Into the Blue is also an option. I'll also be south of Denver. Somewhere between there and Colorado Springs. Thanks! Apex BASE #1816

I'm on a Sabre 135 loaded around 1.35 and don't swoop. I jump at sea level currently but I suspect that I'll be able to adjust. I don't even hook in 90s at this point. Which DZ is better for wingsuiting? Is there a big suit scene, or is it all Havoks/Funks/Etc.? How about freeflying? I suspect with the tunnel there that a decent FF scene must exist, though I'm sure people might tire of paying to fly head down for 30 seconds (or however long the jumps last at that altitude). Grazie! Apex BASE #1816

I'll be spending some time in CO this summer and looking to get a feel for the local dropzones. I see there are a handful in the area but I'd love any feedback on what my options are. I'm a wingsuiter and freeflyer, jumping mostly Fri-Sun and coming from SoCal where I'm spoiled with big DZs, fast planes, and great flyers. I'm used to crappy landing areas and packing outside though. So let me know what will be better/worse for me as I plan to adjust to jumping in CO. I suspect that my landings will be materially faster, but I don't swoop so I'm thinking my straight-in approaches shouldn't be an issue. Apex BASE #1816

No. Go away. Apex BASE #1816

In other words, never agree to any kind of exclusivity. It's a trap! Apex BASE #1816

Yeah you're right. F*ck it. There will be an awkward transition phase when they ban skydiving too, but we'll get used to it after a few years and learn to enjoy playing bocce ball with our friends instead. Regulation of other people is painless. It's not until they knock on your door that it starts to feel real. Apex BASE #1816

Yet another terribly executed, if not well-intended, dumb sh*t attempt to try and protect people from themselves. Just ban skydiving and get it over with already. Apex BASE #1816

If you have no experience on two piece tracking suits you should not be considering buying a 1 piece. It's not like slick tracking. At all. These suits will take you for a ride if you aren't ready for them. Apex BASE #1816

It's different with different manufacturers. Some suits are built to fit tight and others more loosely. A Vampire (any iteration) isn't very tolerant of size mismatches, for example. A looser fitting suit might be. Apex BASE #1816

That doesn't make it right. Apex BASE #1816

Your poll options make less sense than the BSR. Why not a "Support the BSR" or "Do Not Support the BSR" options? Apex BASE #1816

When you're all done patting each other on the back here I'd suggest you check this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4789246;#4789246 This rule is not as popular as you'd all like to think. Apex BASE #1816

I wonder how this ruling would fair in a vote by all USPA members, as opposed to an executive order hastily handed down from the top. If it makes so much sense why not at least poll the membership? Should be a layup, right guys? Apex BASE #1816

It's written poorly because it was written by people who don't fly wingsuits, don't do flybys, and don't feel like doing their homework. They could have easily accomplished the same objective by making it 100 feet, and only by jumpers with 500+ wingsuit jumps, and only with the express permission of everyone involved. DZO, WS pilot, tandem instructor, tandem student. Done. Everyone is happy. But there appears to be a loud minority yelling in these forums against flybys. Most TIs I've spoken to in person think it's a sh*t rule. Apex BASE #1816

Let's stop running in circles. My position isn't popular, but that doesn't mean it's indefensible. I'm not changing any of your minds obviously, but I still see a lack of consistency in this measure. Too bad for me I suppose. What's done is done. The forum has chosen it's position, so I'll leave it at that. Apex BASE #1816

Okay, let's try a few more: The head down jumps are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists. The swoops are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists. The tandem skydives are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists. See where I'm going with this? Here's the real gap in logic: We allow tandem students to consent to a whole lot of risks that they are, in no way, academically qualified to consent to. What's the difference here? It appears that the difference is that some TIs and some BOD members don't like it. I guess that's just politics. Apex BASE #1816