HPC

Quote

I'd like to make a couple points. First of all, it is misleading to claim that a Racer would not benefit much from a MARD system. It is true that a Racer will have a quicker and possibly cleaner p/c launch than other non-Mard equipped rigs, but that is only the beginning of the deployment sequence. A MARD is not only quicker, but is far more likely to give you a clean deployment from a rapidly spinning malfunction.

Agree 100% from a technical standpoint. From a marketing standpoint, more jumpers want MARDs on their rigs than those that don't. It's just poor marketing not to offer one.

Quote

Secondly, there is another issue that has not been addressed in this thread yet. That is the use of thinly Teflon coated cutaway cables instead of the long proven Lolon coated cables originally speced for the 3 ring system. These have been known to have the coating crack and fail in critical situations. And there is no good reason to use them.

Another Racer deviation from the industry standard. I believe PL uses the red teflon cables because they don't require monthly cleaning like the Lolon cables need. In their effort to create a maintenance-free cable, they introduced a new possible failure mode that is probably more detrimental than not cleaning one's cables. While dirty Lolon cables might cause a harder pull than normal, a cracked teflon cable might hang up completely and cause a more severe issue for the jumper to deal with. As I've already mentioned with the speedbag the Lolon cables have proven themselves by every other rig manufacturer. I'd bet that most jumpers don't clean their cables every month as they should, yet how many cutaway issues have been attributed to dirty cables? It doesn't do any good when in trying to address one issue the "fix" creates a (potentially) even worse one.

Quote

Full diapers have two lockings stows (National Aerostar) or three locking stows (Strong Lopo, Butler). The remaining line is stowed on the diaper, but not in locking stows. This is similar to Aerodyne Icon freebags, which have two locking stows and the remaining line stowed in elastic loops in the freebag line stow pocket.

Thanks for the correction - I wasn't 100% sure about all stows being locking, but I did remember that all stows were on the full diaper itself.

Quote

So far, the current freebag system works okay. That's because in most cases, the deployment forces do not reach the breaking strength of the safety stow, about 600 pounds. But we're close, considering reserve weight and freefall speed for some military applications and some speed skydiving.

True, but how many Racers are out there with the speedbag, and how many reserve deployments have there been when compared to the number of standard freebag deployments? The real test of a system's reliability is performance in the field, and the standard freebag has performed excellently for many years and for many manufacturers. When comparing total number of standard freebag deployments to total number of speedbag deployments, the first outnumbers the latter by a huge margin. Skydivers like to go with well-proven designs, and many will buy "what everyone else is buying" without researching rigs for themselves. I believe it's called the "herd mentality".

Quote

First, all the tampering cases we have encountered recently used methods which left the seal intact. Second, the possibility of tampering after the rig has left the rigger's loft is actually a defense, not a liability. You cannot blame me for a too-tight rig if you could have tightened the loop yourself.

I think the burden of proof would be on the rigger that the reserve was tampered with after he repacked and sealed it. Even if what you're saying is true and I have no reason to question it, the reality is still that many riggers refuse to pack the Racer because of the adjustable loop design. That's the bottom line, and if a Racer owner arrives at a convention and two days in realizes he needs a reserve repack, he may find it difficult to find a rigger who is willing to repack his reserve and more importantly has experience doing so.

Quote

Because of the exposed pilot chute, Racers would not benefit very much from a MARD.

Again, probably true, but at the risk of sounding redundant, most jumpers won't have this information when they're shopping for a rig and are considering a Racer. What they will know is that MARDs exist, they work, and in most cases it's beneficial to have one. As such, they may quickly disqualify a rig from possible purchase simply because it doesn't offer a MARD, regardless of whether a MARD would benefit that particular rig or not. Rigging Innovations just recently started offering a MARD for their CURV and presumably other rigs. It'll be interesting to see if their sales increase as a result. I'm betting they will.

There are several things I like about the Racer. However, while they did get a lot of things right the first time, such as harness design and flaps without plastic stiffeners, no deep container corners, and even the external RPC design, I think that they're making a mistake in thinking that because they got a lot of things right from the get-go that they got everything right. Very few complex products and systems are designed perfectly from the start. They all go through an evolving process of continuous improvement and eventually evolve into very reliable systems. They take advantage of improvements in technology and parts. It just seems to me that PL is so stuck in that "we got everything right the first time" mode that they're not willing to think outside the box and consider other possibilities. Or at the opposite extreme, when they do come up with a different way of doing things that is significantly different than what everyone else is doing they try to force that onto the buying public. When the buying public rejects it PL still sticks to it even when it means dwindling sales. It's great to be an innovator but if certain innovations are rejected by the other manufacturers and the consumers (verified by decreasing sales, negative rigger feedback, etc.) then it's better for the company's long-term survival to stop trying to forcefeed it and just let it go.

Mike

Quote

While loop cutter failures are not common, they have happened for various reasons (no cutter installed at factory, cutter not improperly installed through loop, etc. with more failure modes possible such as cutter not being given a cutting edge or electronics failure of the controller, intermittent wire continuity from excessive flexing, or even bad powder charge).

Sorry, that should read "... cutter not properly installed through loop..."

Quote

Things I don't like:
- speedbag hasn't gained my trust (yet?)
- adjustable reserve loop
- double-ended RSL
- lack of MARD option
- reserve ripcord design doesn't facilitate use of a pull tension tester to validate pull force (especially on a field adjustable reserve loop)
- discussing Racers with cult members (not everyone who jumps a Racer is one, but they are the most vocal...)

I'll throw in my two cents worth on each of these issues as follows:

- The speedbag is an issue with some riggers, as they refuse to pack a Racer because of it. Oddly enough, many round reserves back in the day used a full diaper which basically had each stow a locking stow on the diaper itself (anyone correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm going from memory) with some exceptions like the Pioneer K-series which had a partial diaper with two locking stows - the rest of the lines stowed in the reserve pack tray). People jumping full diapers back then didn't seem to have an issue with multiple locking stows as they seem to now with the Racer's speedbag. However, even if the speedbag is a better design from a purely technical standpoint, the current freebag system used by every other rig maker have not only proven themselves from a reliability standpoint but have gained the skydiving public's trust. The speedbag has not. I would recommend that PL start offering the regular freebag as an option as I'm sure that would garner some more sales, or at least remove one reason people have for not buying a Racer or riggers for packing one.
- The adjustable reserve loop is yet another issue with some riggers as it allows a non-rigger to tighten the loop (to seat the poptop closer to the container) which can increase the pull force required to deploy the RPC. It also, in some minds, invalidates the rigger's seal. I have to admit, though I'm not a rigger I would be hesitant to pack a reserve than can be tampered with by anyone but would still have my unbroken seal. Potential legal issues there should someone tamper with the closing loop and then get hurt or killed. PL needs to redesign the whole closing loop system. Another issue potential customers have is that the Racer has two reserve pins. Part of their issue with this is that it's simply, in their eyes, a dated method when one considers that every other rig being made has the single pin system. Another concern with the two-pin setup is the extra cost of loop cutters. However, when one looks at the Racer's price tag the extra cost of a two-pin cutter system is more than outweighed by the Racer's lower acquisition cost - unless someone plans on having a lot of AAD activations and goes through a few cutters. I don't have an issue with the two-pin reserve in and of itself, but my issue is that it requires that both loops be cut before the RPC will launch. While loop cutter failures are not common, they have happened for various reasons (no cutter installed at factory, cutter not improperly installed through loop, etc. with more failure modes possible such as cutter not being given a cutting edge or electronics failure of the controller, intermittent wire continuity from excessive flexing, or even bad powder charge). Those of you who understand basic digital logic know that the current two-pin system is basically an AND gate, which to me means there are two cutters that have to work before the reserve activates. If one cutter works and the other doesn't, then it's a reserve total. If PL redesigned it so that it acted like an OR gate then only one of the two cutters need work in order to launch the RPC. By redesigning the loop and RPC so that the loop moves freely through the RPC channel instead of being tacked to it (which is why both loops or both ends of the same loop need to be cut for it to work) then they would basically turn a system that needs one more component to work compared to other systems into a redundant system in which the second loop cutter acts as a backup. For me personally, this is at least as much a concern as the speedbag (in which should one locking stow experience baglock then it's a very high speed streamer of the reserve). Or, if they redesigned the reserve system so that it's a single pin system then that would address the concerns of those who won't buy a Racer because of its two-pin reserve setup.
- Regarding the double-ended RSL, I believe that PL offers the Racer with a single-sided RSL now, so this is really a non-issue. As with the standard freebag, the single-sided RSL has proven itself with every other rig maker, so even if the double RSL is technically better that advantage is probably marginal when the success rate of the single-sided RSL is examined.
- As far as a lack of MARD option goes, the Racer is priced low enough so that PL could probably license a Skyhook or other successful MARD design and offer a MARD. Earlier this year I had a survey posted asking what were the most important considerations when looking at rigs to purchase. The availability of a MARD system rated high, so I would guess that the lack of an offered MARD is probably costing PL some sales. Another option in the survey was the size of the rig manufacturer - scoring high was a rig maker who was large enough to weather economic downturns, competition, and lawsuits and remain in business. The large and established rig makers like UPT and Sunpath will still be around in 15 or 20 years, but will a rig maker that is smaller and is seeing market share drop over the years still be around down the road? It's an important consideration for many rig buyers, especially when it comes to acquiring spares or needing factory work.
- I'm not too familiar with the reserve ripcord system of the Racer as it applies to pull force testing so I'll reserve comment on that at this time.
- Yes, Racer fans are quite opinionated about the Racer. In the end you may just have to agree to disagree rather than get into a heated discussion with a Racer jumper.

I welcome any corrections or alternate opinions as long as you do so in a civilized manner. Those of you who are snipers, please empty your magazines and take a break.

Quote

- I REALLY like many things about the Racer over an above other rigs.

Could you list these?

Are there any canopy pack volume restrictions with the new rig?

I've never been able to get it up and running, at least not for the Racer Classic.

Can you elaborate on the things you would add/delete/change? Thx.

Angela Dorian - aka Victoria Vetri.

Yeah, I agree - that wasn't very nice and was certainly avoidable.

Two extra brain cells - one for each reserve pin!😉

Cordura - I see neon pink too.

And wasn't the pilot chute-controlled slider x-shaped?

This has been done before on earlier canopies, possibly accuracy canopies but I'm not certain, my memory isn't quite what it was.

Has it ever been determined which contributes more to hard openings, ZP or microline? I think that both came out within three years of each other (microline in 1986 and ZP in 1989) so time of introduction to determine this would be difficult since a three year spread isn't really enough to determine a trend for the microline.

Quote

Once we had good sliders and good staging the problems of hard openings was basically solved. Then as micro line and ZP showed up it reared it's head again.

This is exactly the point I've been debating with another poster on another thread.

How about risers designed to separate (fail at a predetermined point) to act like the weakest link, or a fuse like in electronics? They would separate at forces less than those that would kill or seriously injure the jumper. They would have to be built into a location so that it wouldn't interfere with the RSL. Worst case is that the jumper would have to replace his risers after a very hard opening (I.e. replace the fuse).

You've obviously been in the sport for a long time. Have you noticed any trends regarding equipment technology and changes to it compared to the frequency and severity of hard openings? Have fatal or maiming hard openings always been a problem to the degree they are today or did the trend go up with the introduction of ZP/microline? Is there any correlation that you can discern? Just curious.

Sounds like you chose a Vortex over the Curv and RPC location was the deciding factor. Both are excellent rigs and are, in fact, at the top of my list in their respective RPC location categories.

Personally, I've never followed the masses. I've always done my own thorough research, taken everything I could think of into account, and made my own decision. I'm the jumper you might see at a DZ who's the only one jumping a particular rig or canopy, but that's because I did my research and bought what I felt was the best item for me. I'll also defend my choice no end and back my choice with information and data. I never buy strictly on heresay.

I had thought about web design as a choice in the survey but I was already up to 15 choices in the poll and was hesitant to add more. However, I've visited every major rig manufacturer's website and agree that some websites (and more specifically, rig design programs) are excellent while others are mediocre at best. Some websites are laid out poorly and it's difficult to find specific information. Some rig design programs are very intuitive and easy to use while others are difficult to figure out and clunky.
However, since different monitors and screens will show colors differently and since actual fabric colors can be significantly different from what you see on the rig design program, I highly recommend getting color samples of Cordura, trim tape, and webbing from the manufacturer and lay them out on a table and experiment. Two colors that may look good on the monitor of your desktop, laptop or iPad may look much different when actual fabric samples are placed side-by-side.
You can see clearly which rig manufacturers have gone the extra mile in the design of their websites and rig design programs and which ones have put little thought and investment into theirs.

As far as fit goes, that depends on the jumper getting the right measurements. Often they don't. If the factory screws up (and nobody's perfect) even with correct measurements then correcting the problem to the customer's satisfaction falls under "Customer Service" which is one of the choices in the survey. Customer service is not just answering dozens of questions before the sale, more importantly it's how they handle screwups after the sale.

Regarding the "tea party" comment you made (I'm sure I know what rig you're talking about) please read choice #14 which covers that. If a rig that has an issue is still doing decent business then that probably means one of two things - either customers don't do enough research to familiarize themselves with the problem or they're aware of the problem but have their priorities out of whack. That's one of the reasons I put that option in the survey, and the last time I checked that was, surprisingly, not high in the voting.

Yeah, I should have specified that the question is standalone and not to be taken into consideration with anything else. There are also other considerations within strictly the reserve system itself, such as reserve container design and RPC spring type (conical, cylindrical, etc.)

Feel free to list all reasons (e.g. speed of RPC launch, chances of RPC hesitating or not launching at all, appearance, etc.).

When deciding on a new rig, what are the most important things that influence your final decision? You may select more than one but please keep it to just the most important. Please post in the thread to include anything that I might have missed.