sundevil777

It is wise to be concerned about damage to your hearing, but wind and airplane noise are also damaging. I prefer the noise filter type earplugs such as these: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083263#4083263 Many threads can be found on the subject, and reports of hearing your audible more easily with all forms of earplugs is I believe always true.

Electric plane thread

Dacron lines thread Dacron lines ought to be considered.

Ha! “Were they really able to buff out all the damage”

Of course we understand the G4 will perform better, but you insisted the G3 has negligible benefit, insignificant. Decide which. Of course wood is a better thermal insulator than glass, but it is not insignificant. Engineers worth anything don’t think like that.

I don’t understand your comment about it being so big.

Are you trying to be a troll?

What is so magical about that standard? I am certain that a tougher standard could be written, that would provide more protection that would help in some scenarios, and that would require a heavier, bulkier helmet to comply. The standard is a compromise, but you don’t seem to see it that way. I have no doubt that it performs better than the G3, but to assert that not meeting the standard makes the protection provided insignificant is not correct. This is not how engineers should analyze problems. I was sure we could have an interesting conversation about the new helmet, but this is really tiresome.

Knowing the general outcome is very different than so confidently asserting the G3 provides insignificant protection as you have defined. You are not the only one with an engineering/technical background. The info you provided does nothing to clarify how much better the G4 is. It would have been very easy for Cookie to let us know how much improved their new helmet is, but they did not. Quoting the new standard's test setup and pass criteria gives us nothing with which to compare the G3. Quoting what the old DOT motorcycle helmet standard was does nothing to inform us of how well it compared to typical helmets that were common before the standard. Most engineers I think would not make such assertions without evidence. Why are you so determined to defend your position. I really don't understand. Can't this be discussed without insults?

You assert "insignificance" without any data to compare the performance. I have no doubt the G4 performs better than the G3. Without data to back it up, your assertion that the G3 protection is insignificant as you define it, is unworthy of an engineer.

Quite right! Dacron just works well, and not just because it is able to absorb some of the shock: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/266092-dacron-lines-are-good-not-just-because-they-absorb-more-shock/?do=findComment&comment=4861211

I always withdraw the pull up cord when there is no tension on the closing loop. I put my thumb on the loop during the final pull through the final grommet, when it is pulled through farther than needed as the pin is inserted, and withdraw the pull up cord with virtually no resistance force at all. This has resulted in a closing loop that still looks absolutely new after about 90 jumps. I think that if you can't pull the closing loop through farther than needed to accomplish what I've described, then the loop is too tight. Others may think it means my loop is too loose, but I don't think so. So often I see people pulling their pull up cord very fast through a very tight loop, and even if they situate it under the pin before withdrawal, I think the potential for needless wear is great. The modern, wide pull up cords with heat-sealed edges at the ends I think are particularly harsh on closing loops. The old-school gutted 550 cord were much gentler I think.

Quite right. One would think that if the G4 was such an improvement, Cookie would be advertising about it, with graphs and videos from the tests and such. I would expect that skydivers being the tech wonks that we are, we would eat it up. Many more people would be replacing their G3 if there were solid data to back up the improvement. We are left to wonder if the numbers actually are impressive. The standard to which the G4 complies might result in 50% less g loading, or 5% or who knows what? That standard may be no more ambitious than the old DOT motorcycle helmet, which was not at all ambitious.

Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, motorcycle helmets had their first (I believe) impact standard in the US issued by the DOT. Many years later, a private organization issued the Snell standard because it was recognized that helmets could, and should be much better. The Snell standard was much tougher to meet. At some time in the future, we may conclude that the standard to which the G4 complies is inadequate. It would be wrong to say that standard provides insignificant protection just because a better standard might exist. I only wanted to know how insignificant a G3 is compared to the G4. Is that somewhere in the deluge of documents?

I also have a mech eng degree. I haven’t spread any bad, life threatening info. Please take it easy, I didn’t think curiosity would evoke such a reaction. Someone might actually know the answer to how well the old vs new helmet compares. It definitely will be better than nothing.

It depends on what you mean by meaningful. You are speculating.

There is no misunderstanding of how helmets work. The point I would make is that without data, we don't know if the liner for a G3 is 0.1% or 1% or 10% as effective as the shock absorbing material used in a G4.

Without test data to compare the performance of a G3 vs G4 vs no helmet at all, we are speculating on how negligible the impact protection of a G3 or any other helmet is. Maybe we already have the data to make that comparison?

Where was the wear? That should help you to know the cause. Sharp edges on the grommets, washer, or the pin itself are of course particularly dangerous as the damage might not be easy to see.

Why would a company want to be associated with Che Guevara?

I have never encountered what you "suspect" I've been exposed to, therefore "drawn into". That is such rubbish. Getting out more intellectually would help free you of such garbage. Completely without a clue you are. So without a clue that you don't realize it is asserted by many on the left. Just do an internet search - can black people be racist. To not even realize it is an issue shows you're not keeping up with the ideology. The above, "far right news feeds..." shows how not being on board with the resistance means a person is "far-right", or "extremist". But I suspect there's nothing nefarious, In far-left news feeds, conservatives get labeled by leftist media with those terms, but the you will not find a leftist author/pundit labeled as a Marxist, or extreme left, and I suspect you just got drawn into that sort of thinking from constant exposure. Examples, many more are out there, do some research on your own idealogy. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-can-black-people-be-racist_n_5c3e5e8be4b01c93e00e8764

It is great that you think people of all colors can be racist. There are many on the left that do not agree.

Maybe she does not hate Trump, but it seemed to be clear. I didn't say she was an extremist. I believe we all ought to watch out for how our bias might affect the way we perceive things. I'm not a Trump lover. I am a Marxism hater, and I hope I can resist the urge to hate the individual person that has fallen for the Evil Ideology.

Yes. Do you think toxic feminism exists now? OK. I posted about the things I disagreed with in your copy-and-paste, as you requested. If you are now saying "he didn't say that, he said something else" no worries; post what he said and we can discuss that. Please read it again. The wiki article said, " He has argued that the existing societal hierarchy that the "left" has characterised as an "oppressive patriarchy" might "be predicated on competence." He did not justify oppressive patriarchy, he said that it was a hierarchy. He often talks about how the left characterizes any hierarchy where men dominate as an oppressive patriarchy, but he does not accept that characterization and explains why. Do you see the difference? It is a really big difference, and it is why I said you got it wrong in a really major way. Right. Like the fact that women are "more agreeable." If women are in general more agreeable, and that makes them get paid less, then that's a reason attributable to gender. He could argue that it is justifiably sexist, but he can't claim it's not sexist - because the discrimination is sex-linked. I used an example of how it would be wrong for men to claim sexism if they usually don't have the qualities that a job requires. Do you agree? I think it likely all traits that you might want to consider would have some disparity between the sexes. If true, then all traits are "attributable to gender". Therefore any performance difference (and resulting pay difference) on the job due to the presence/absence of any trait would be "sexist - because the discrimination is sex-linked", correct? Association doesn't mean causation, and people can improve their agreeableness, or assertiveness. Dr Peterson talks about helping people with that to improve their careers. That is a really awful analogy. You can go there without me. It is provable that men are generally stronger than women. I would not expect many blocklayers to be women. I would not expect the average woman would be able to perform as well as the average man. For blocklayers their perfomance is easily measured, and I would expect the average woman's long term pay/raises would not match the men. I would expect a guy hiring blocklayers to not be biased against a woman that is quite strong, even stronger than the average male blocklayer, and that her performance and pay should reflect that. It seems like the argument leads to the rejection of a merit-based reward system. What is important is that people be judged upon reasonable traits/measures of performance. If men are less agreeable, I would expect them to not dominate nursing. It doesn't mean the people doing performance evaluations of nurses are biased against men.

Is it possible that your hatred for Trump has biased how things "seem"?