Dd0g

Honestly, what we're all in awe of are his golden, flowing locks. Wow! Peace, D-d0g +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Lukas was a prince of a man, and is sorely missed by his many friends around the world. His style of wingsuit jumping was very aggressive; for Lukas, it was all about speed and horizontal separation, rather than "float time." Fly on, Cold Steel. . . Peace, D-d0g +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Hey, no worries. I'm just glad that Tom didn't hijack my ID and start posting "kill all the cats" comments around the net. He's funny like that, you gotta watch him! Just 'cause I am a "dog and horses" afficianado don't mean I hate cats, yo! Peace, D-d0g +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Mark- I appreciate your comments, but you've mis-directed your caution. I've not posted anything about cats and shotguns (at least, nothing I can remember doing ). Heck, I don't even own a cat! I'll look around and try to find the post that you are referencing. Perhaps someone went to the trouble to hack my ID and post as me, though I'd doubt that as who in their right mind would want to steal my identity? It'd be like stealing a broken-down old Dodge Dart Peace, D-d0g ps: I did a forum search on "cat and shotgun," and found only a post I made a while back about BASE videos. In it, I discussed the scene in which my friend RL is shot (with a 12-gauge shotgun) by Goldilicks on the video. Later, I mentioned the infamous "road kill possum/cat" footage. However, I never suggested (or joked) that folks shoot cats. Shooting Ray is ok by me (!!), but shooting cats is out of line. Sorry if somehow I gave some other impression - my non-human family is, in many ways, more a part of me than any humans so I think I full well understand the imperative of treating other sentient beings on our planet with respect and care. +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Several of the MofS videos have footage of Dano doing rope jumps on them, up to and including (if memory serves) MofS 5. I believe Dano would have enjoyed BASE, it is too bad he didn't end up in our sport as I believe he'd have been a natural. His loss reverberated through the climbing world in a profound way. Peace, D-d0g +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

yeah, right! Peace, D-d0g [email protected] +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Adam is a cool cat, and a real asset to the sport of BASE. Peace, D-d0g [email protected] Dog's Den +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

ask about this. If someone wants to start a thread on Fat Boy BASE (either here or on BLiNC), I think it might make an interesting discussion. We're not fat, we're "big boned." Also see: "festively plump." Being a big boy does introduce some specific considerations in the BASE game. Most (other than simply canopy size) are really only relevant out at the fringes of the BASE envelope. If anyone ever wants my $0.10 on such topics, I'll be happy to share my experience. However, as Tom said, there's not too many of us big boys in BASE, and far fewer (two that I know of) really pushing the edges. Peace, D-d0g [email protected] {stabilizing at around 230 in birthday suit after a fall of heavy lifting at the expense of any aerobic work whatsoever } +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Speaking of expensive private school education, there's no apostrophe in "avatars". There is if one is discussing an Avatar's ass. . . Peace, D-d0g +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Avatar. Peace, D-d0g +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

I've never managed to make more than 150 in a year, but then again I do have a "job" (several, depending on who is counting) and other pastimes that eat into my jumping. It really helps to have three things. One, local objects that are reasonably wind-independent (like Ss) and easy to access (no major security drama, short turnaround time). We have one S about 15 minutes drive from town, easy access, low bust. Also, not too much time wasted in freefall or under canopy Two, keen mates with whom to jump. Solo jumping is fun, but one gets more jumps with mates. Three, a few big trips. I've been averaging around 30 jumps in 10-14 day trips this year. Seems that more than that many jumps in one trip is possible, but I tend to reach satiation and stop jumping so much and spend more time chillin' on a trip after that. So, if one does three trips per year (Malaysia, Europe, and an open slot for South Africa, Norway, Russia. . . ), that's 90 jumps. Sixty more home jumps, about once a week taking into account time away for trips. That's pretty standard for me at this point. I think if one is to jettison the whole "career" thing for a while, a doubling of these numbers is reasonable in a year. Our you could be like a certain Aussie: move to TF and pound out 300 jumps in three months flat. Also, and I may be shagged for saying this, but "efficient" packing equates to more jumps - especially on trips. Peace, D-d0g [email protected] Dog's Den +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Yuri has posted exceptionally useful informantion on this subject on the Base Board. I think it's in the wingsuit forum. With his experiences, at least, the horsehoes cleared during the premature deployment by the PC extracting itself fom the BOC pouch. Clearly, this isn't something one would want to bet one's life on - and a failure of the PC to extract would almost certainly be a fatality (though I know of no confirmed BASE fatalities from horseshoe malfunctions - there is one from a cutaway from a dual-canopy BASE rig too low, the late Xavier Bongard). Peace, D-d0g [email protected] Dog's Den +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

A surprisingly high number of people have broken ankles landing from the Perrine. Some have been very experienced jumpers, some new to the sport. Particularly in the summer, this is really silly. Why? Go to the water! One's gear dries quick, but broken ankles take a long time to heal and are never quite right for many people. Go to the water! For your first few jumps, why not eliminate all concern about landing problems and just get wet? Then, when you are feeling frisky about the jump and the canopy behavior, you can stay dry. But, if you get the willies under canopy and things are moving a bit too fast, get wet! I've watched too many times as solid jumpers took huge risks to stay dry. I've done this myself, too many times. Sure, it's cool to take it deep and just baaaarely swoop into land at 30+ mph. But one bad calculation and - you guessed it - broken ankle. Trip's over, jumping is over for the summer, major bummer. I've pounded in so hard jumping there that, even in waist-deep water, I've sprained an ankle. I don't want to think what injury that would have been on dry land. I've also watched novices pendulum into the trees in a wild flurry of toggles, risers, arms, and legs. I've seen folks miss being impaled in dead branches of trees by only inches, blissfully unaware that they almost had the chance to see their intestines up-close and personal. Heck, I've seen people pad up with so much protective gear that they were AFRAID to go to the water, so instead they hammered into the "football field" full of ankle-breaker rocks. News flash: no amount of gear will protect you if you pound in really hard on solid ground. However, even jumping in one's birthday suit (not recommended, metaphorically speaking), it is damned hard to get hurt hitting the water so long as one has a canopy over one's head with a slider somewhere down by the risers, more or less. In other words. . . Get wet! One of the reasons this site is so safe is because it is over water. That gives a massive margin for error for mistakes that would otherwise cause substantial injury or fatality. However, that entire margin for error is lost (100% lost) if folks either jump over the land, or are so dead-set mentally on "making the shore" that they fail to use the water 'out.' If in doubt. . . Get wet! Sorry, bit of a sore topic for me. I watched a very good friend come about .3 seconds from sniveling into the shoreline because he was not far enough out over the water to really reap the benefits of the water landing option. It scared the doggie doo out of me, and ever since I'm a bit of a fanatic about the subject. Peace, D-d0g [email protected]

The risk in this, for scatterbrained old Dogs like me anyway, is that one is always tempted to use the unvented rig when it is "convenient" (i.e. packed, in the trunk, etc.) and a vented-style object is sitting there waiting to be jumped. For me at least, Murphy's Law says that I'll end up with my one unvented rig when standing at exit on a dodgy object that really demands venting. And, yes, I've finally put my jumping where my mouth is and sold my last unvented rig. Now, I will have ONLY vented canopies in my quiver - even though I do alot of jumping that doesn't need the new technology, I don't EVER want to be caught in a spot where venting would have made the difference, and through the confluence of daily ephemera I'm under my one, old, unvented canopy. Just a thought. Peace, D-d0g [email protected] Dog's Den +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Wth an unvented canopy, brake settings that are truly too deep will result in a slider-up opening that feels (to me, at least) mushy, non-consistent, and like it's not really completely pressurized until the brakes are released. This could be bad if one is going very deep or has a hard object to contend with. Otherwise, it is at worst a bit disconcerting. I've really only seen 3 or 4 people ever jump brake settings that were truly, really TOO deep. Nearly all folks are jumping brakes that are way too shallow. So, if you are using your "deeper" brake settings slider up and the openings feel more or less normal, I'd say stick with those. If you get a mushiness, try the shallower ones and see if it goes away. Note that I recommend this trial and error only on a very forgiving slider-up object, not some underhung, dodgy, "Portland-style" monstrosity. The best way - by far - to dial in brake settings is (in my opinion) to do a bunch of jumps off a safe object with nil winds and watch video of the openings from above. This is mostly for slider down, granted, and for slider up I suppose jumping the canopy from an airplane to set the optimal stall point slider up is probably best. I'm not sure I'd see any difference in "optimal" brake settings for terminal slider-up versus subterminal slider-up except insofar as the latter was REALLY subterminal (less than 4.5 secs or so) and folks are trying to do the "steer the canopy into an on-heading opening before it fully pressurizes" trick. I don't have firsthand experience with this trick, so I'll let others who do comment further on ideal brake settings for same. Remember: too shallow brakes + hard object close to pressurizing canopy + 180 = DEATH. This gear mis-configuration has killed (directly or indirectly) many jumpers. Peace, D-d0g [email protected] Dog's Den +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Yeah, what sort of a fool would freefall a 173 foot cliff? As Tom (accurately) points out, there's many more factors to selecting good exit points on Es than simply height to impact. Also, remember that in general climbers consider some things to be "steep" when they are in fact underhung enough to kill BASE jumpers. I have come very close to proving this lemma myself, so there's really no need for anyone else to repeat that proof. Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

I'll be ordering a 293 Flik in short order, Tom, so perhaps you can use that for your comparative matrix if it is manufactured in time. Regarding BPSs' feedback, let me briefly state (to repeat in part what I've said on the ABA site) that I have never jumped a Blackjack or Ace myself. Thus, I can't be relied on for impartial "this is how it feels to jump" advice. On the flipside, I've seen a half dozen different experienced jumpers under these canopies in a variety of conditions. Second, a very dear friend of mine, Dr. Nik Hartshorne, died under a Blackjack last summer (with a sail slider). I can honestly say that it is not possible for me to factor out my personal emotional investment in this situation from my objective analysis of the canopy's performance. In other words, I believe I have a "chip on my shoulder" with respect to the Blackjack. This may be impacting my judgment of the canopy inappropriately. Enough re-hashing of my personal thoughts, If you want the full spray, go to the ABA site and the link Tom provided to the bitch board thread. It's all said there, in gruesome detail. And, yes, Tom and I will probably continue to debate this particular topic in strange locales around the world for years to come Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Tom truly does a service to new-ish jumpers by sharing his gear knowledge publicly and in his trademarked, "articulate" style. I've learned so much from his postings, and I continue to look to him for solid thinking on nearly all technical issues in BASE That said, I'm on record here and elsewhere as a severe critic of the Blackjack/Ace, and I believe I echo the stated opinions of many experienced jumpers in this regard. Rather than burning hard disk space here re-hasing my personal opinions on this, readers can check in the Australian BASE Association forum for a detailed thread on this subject. I am a big supporter of Consolidated Rigging, and I have a deep respect for Adam's contributions to BASE over many years. However, I believe the Ace/Blackjack is a dangerous slider-up canopy, and while it is tempting for me to bite my tongue and keep my opinions to myself, I cannot in good conscience do so. I don't consider myself to be experienced or technically knowledgeable enough to say what the "best" canopy is (if there is such a thing); however, I've seen enough scary slider-up Blackjack openings to convince me it isn't safe for many of the slider-up jumps we do in BASE nowadays. Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Made seven in one day from five different Es in Switzerland. Ahh, life on the BASE curcuit. . . Overall, over 100. Thirty or more objects, ten of which were newly-opened. Yay! One broken ankle, not so bad for that much jumping. Spence and our Aussie friend make my 2002 look downright lazy in comparison, of course! Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

I back Tom on this, though I did not initially. There's lots of folks out there who might pick up just a name from a forum like this, take their skydiving rig, and off they go. The chance of this happening? Damned small. The consequences if it did? Tragic. As many know, we had an incident eerily similar to this last year in the PNW. In this case, the jumper heard of the object in question at a local DZ (at that same local DZ, by the way, "BASE jumpers" are widely passing out unsolicited beta to a technical slider-up E with no regard for whether the recipient of the data even has the ability to judge the site. . . but I digress into a bitter side-thread). Nowadays, I'm trying to be more careful about public naming of sites - legal or otherwise. True, anyone with half a brain can find these sites with a bit of digging, but it is the folks lacking even half a brain that worry me most (incidentally, there has been a BASE person floating around in late 2002 that qualifies as "lacking half a brain" and had he had access to piss easy site beta, I believe he'd have already gone in somewhere). Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Dwain has been gracious enough to step in and correct some inaccuracies in my statements above. I've excerpted elements from his correspondence to me, with his permission: Hey I just read your dropzone.com post regarding delay/distance. There are a couple of minor inaccuracies (in my opinion) which add up to a big inaccuracy if taken literally. First of all MotherHucker wrote: "I hope if you take 5 secs slider up from a 600' object, you are over water and wearing indestructible diapers. " This is true 95% of the time. "And if you take 5 secs slider "on", but not up, be prepared to land on 3 or 4 cells. " This is not true. "Be prepared to land with a broken neck" is more accurate. You wrote: "A five second delay until PC deployment is likely approximately six seconds to canopy pressurization." This is totally wrong. [emphasis added] From memory if you release a p/c at about the 5 second mark you will hit LINE STRETCH at about 6.2 - 6.3 seconds after exit (it takes about 1.3 seconds from p/c release to line stretch at that speed, from memory - it's definitely more than a second). This means you will you will begin to decelerate at about 60 - 70 feet above the ground while travelling at about 97 miles per hour downwards. In this instance MH's first statement is correct. You will hit the ground very hard during deployment. . . As to the other 5% of the time: I have a video of myself jumping a 590 ft cliff and taking very close to a 5 second delay slider up (brakes off, nice flare landing with a few secs canopy time). This doesn't work according to the math. However this is possible due to a number of factors (I believe): 1. The canopy deployment was unusually fast for slider up, and I'm relatively light so I don't use as much height for deployment. 2. I jumped up on the launch a fair way so that probably squeezed an extra 1/2 second or more out of the freefall (charts are based on just dropping straight down - nobody does that unless you do a hanging exit - notice how quickly you go down when you do a hanging exit from [that B we jump alot that is about 340 feet to impact] - you have way less time). Same goes for the way you exit - you launch up and out, so you tend to get more freefall time. If you wanted to relate it to the freefall charts you'd have to start timing at the top of your arc during freefall, not when your feet leave the exit point. 3. I was slow falling the whole way getting max air resistance. I've noticed that the freefall charts don't apply to myself that much because I can really float in freefall. This is how I can get 7.5 secs from a 930' cliff in Australia whereas others are smoking it way down on deep sixes. You wrote: "I've never seen a consensus on exactly how long after PC deployment until a given canopy is pressurized and flying" Well time isn't as important as distance travelled from pc release to reaching full pressurization (but I know this is what you meant). There isn't a general consensus because this is so highly variable. Say you and KS were jumping the same canopy, same packjob, same wingloading, (ie. your canopy would be more than twice the size of hers), etc etc and you deployed side by side. You will always open way lower than her because it will always take way more energy to decelerate you (M*V squared). Therefore KS will always be able to dump lower than you (providing other things remain constant). Being heavy means your p/c tosses must always be higher. You'll never win (and live) a low pull comp against someone lighter (if they are good) whereas you may win a lowest deployment comp. Same goes for really low freefalls. You require more energy (and therefore more height) to decelerate. This is all academic though and I know you already know this. Loose the weight fat boy if you want to dump/exit ultra low. ;-) [ha ha - thanks Dwain! ] You wrote: "however, as a general rule I've heard others talk about a standard, 1 second post-PC deployment delay until pressurization" One second isn't a valid time to apply under any set of circumstances (from my research). On a one sec delay it takes 2 secs from p/c release to line stretch. On a 2 sec delay it takes 1.6 secs from p/c release to line stretch (all averages). It seems to stabilize out at about 1.1 - 1.2 secs from p/c release to line stretch at terminal (from memory - I did all these figures 6 or 7 years ago and my memory a little rusty). Full pressurization eats up a LOT more altitude and is highly variable on a huge range of things. Once again this is mostly academic. Your delay usually should depend upon eyeballing the ground, not counting. No matter how badly you want to take a 5 secs from 600ft (saying that you just drop off the exit - not jump up) I'm sure you'll have the pc out before 4.5 secs because your survival instinct will kick in. Basically my point is that the charts aren't valid unless you measure freefall time from the top of the arc on exit. The other point is the way we measure freefall time in BASE is stupid. It would be much more meaningful to measure from the time that we start moving downwards to the time we start decelerating (ie. hit line stretch). This is more relevant to the actual act we are performing. Timing exit to pc release just describes what the jumper did, it doesn't tell the full (and more relevant) picture of what actually happened in terms of distance travelled and speed obtained. But the standards are set and there is no way it will ever be changed. Also my brain is so wired in to the current system I don't think I could change. My thanks to Dwain for the clarifications; I hope folks appreciate the years of experience that stand behind his statements. . . well, all except for the "fat boy" quip Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Not necessarily. One thing I carry with me all the time (loaded in my Palm, and yes I'm a geek) is a fall rate chart. A five second delay until PC deployment is likely approximately six seconds to canopy pressurization. [note that this is a big assumption - despite the critical nature of post-PC extraction length calculations to anyone doing really low pulls, I've never seen a consensus on exactly how long after PC deployment until a given canopy is pressurized and flying. . . clearly, one would expect this number to vary depending on slider up/slider down, direct/indirect stow or no stow slider up, venting or unvented canopy, etc. . . however, as a general rule I've heard others talk about a standard, 1 second post-PC deployment delay until pressurization. . . mostly, those who play the low pull game develop a very good "gut feel" of how long until PC deployment is possible by doing lots of jumps and building a virtual model in their mind of where the fringe of the chart is and how close to the fringe is possible without going to the hospital or morgue. . . an interesting topic, at least to me.] A body falling for six seconds with no decceleration (either from aerodynamic drag or partial canopy extraction drag) would eat up 504 feet, and be going 94.09mph. One hundred feet of canopy time is not on the low end of the spectrum - I've seen (and partaken in) lower than this many times, even slider up. Which brings me to an important issue. First, it is important to actually have a good feel for the "fall rate chart," particularly when dealing with subterminal objects (less than about 850feet to deployment). I know several jumpers who have simply memorized the zero to seven second fall rate chart. While this is (obviously) a continuous function, some data points extracted from the curve are: 1 10.91 16 2 31.36 62 3 51.81 138 4 70.91 242 5 84.54 366 6 94.09 504 7 100.91 652 8 terminal 808 9 terminal 971 Note that the distance travelled in freefall is far from linear; in fact, it's approximately geometric until about 7 seconds. This is why, in my opionion, timing delays accurately between 2 and 6 seconds is an advanced BASE skill mastered by few folks. Things happen fast in that zone- acceleration and distance fallen are increasing at an increasing rate (humans think mostly in linear terms, so most folks don't naturally cotton to this math). It takes alot of jumps to get a feel for how this curve really unfolds in freefall. This is, of course, particularly relevant when "low pulling." Taking 4 seconds off a 440 foot object requires pretty good timing, for example. Take five (assuming the opening didn't break your back slider off), and you'll likely impact at line stretch. Take three, and well you are wasting valuable freefall time If we are not using laser rangefinders (or if the exit is underhung and makes a laser reading impossible without climbing gear to set an anchor and partially rappel off the exit for a clean line of sight), then the way to see how high an object is (and thus what delay is possible, assuming no glide to landing area problems, etc.) is by rock drop. [B]WARNING Doing rock drops incorrectly can result in substantively incorrect readings and potential fatalities! A rock - in order to overcome aerodynamic inertia - must be (by conventional wisdom) at least as big as a softball and roughly spherical. A smaller rock - or one with a flatter shape - will slow down and hit "terminal" much earlier than a falling human body before transition to track (and without a wingsuit). Thus, throwing a flat or small rock off a cliff, timing (with a watch) eight seconds, and planning a 5 second slider up delay is a likely fatality. The object may well be only 500 feet or so high - and a 5 second slider up delay off that will result in impact at line stretch most likely. Fatality. Also remember that "lighter" rocks (like volcanic tuft) will float no matter how big they are, within reason. Their density is too low to offer accurate rock drops. I've seen many experienced jumpers make these rock drop mistakes, thereby systematically over-estimating how high cliff exits are. This is extremely dangerous. Yes, low pulls are a dangerous game. It is stupid - why would anyone do it? Don't do low pulls. In other words, do as a I say and not as I do (as in so many other areas). Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Good metaphor! Though, again, I don't know any experienced (200+) BASE folks who really think all of their "close saves" has been skill and no luck. Maybe it's just my limited sample set, though I hope not. There aree plenty of times in BASE where the cards either go for or against us, and where skill is only margially relevant in determining eventual outcome. Anyone who has jumped a few hundred times (off enough different objects) surely must know that - I'd hope. Note that this is not to downplay sharp skills. For every time in my BASE career (short as it is) that I feel luck has saved by fat ass, I can point to a time where good training (and good advice from my mentors and friends) and sharp responses saved my fat ass. I guess they go hand-in-glove: skill and luck. Though, as the old adage goes, I'll take luck over skill any day I'd say all the above is true with street bikes. Anyone who has really played that game for a while surely must have had enough close calls to show the importance of blind luck. I mean, no matter how quick one's reflexes are, a raccoon in the road at 160+ mph is a death certificate. I once came so close to a deer at that speed that I felt the brush of hair on my leg. . . Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com my 2001 R1 was the only vice I had that I honestly feel was more dangerous than BASE. I gave it up as I started jumping alot, since statistically I just couldn't see surviving both simultaneously for any length of time. Though, taking the R1 out for a quick trip to our local A and back sure was a fun way to while away a couple of hours +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

Broadly speaking, I find that the more jumps folks have, the more open to other's BASE experience and wisdom they seem to be. I know very few 500+ jumpers who think they know it all. . . maybe it's just that BASE often reminds us of our knowledge shortcomings in brutal manner. Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.

I've not flown one myself, but I know a couple of fellows pretty well who, between them, have more Flik jumps than any other humans. From their comments, I get the feel that the Flik flares much as an unvented Fox does. Makes sense, as the airfoil is very similar and the valves should help to minimize vent impact on flare. Oh, and the Flik comes standard with the 5th control line - a mod I've always wanted to make on my Fox but never got around to. That also should help flare stroke for most jumpers. I'm leaning towards a 290 Troll as my next canopy. Those things are tech! Peace, D-d0g [email protected] http://www.wrinko.com +~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere.