Beatnik

I may be wrong but I believe the systems were invented by different people and the pullout was mainly a system against horseshoes. To the OP, did they also tell you that throw outs were old technology? Considering they came out before the pull out.

I have done work for a few companies and they have never had or mentioned a problem with my setups. On bags with unbalanced stows (typically older d-bags), having very tight stows or double stows can induce line twists and cause other problems. Like I mentioned before the locking stows are the main ones to be concerned with. You do not want those to come undone before the rest is unstowed.

In the cases I am referring to it was because of winds not technique. I have some technical data from a study done on them somewhere on them. But I also know quite a few people without a problem jumping with them as well.

I know several people that have had problems with Strato-Stars in certain wind conditions in which they collapsed. One of which was a gold medalist at a world parachuting championships.

Please explain. They don't fall out, they can almost. There is enough to keep them organized. Look at a lot of stowless bags that people have used for years. They don't have the tension you mention and haven't contributed to mals. Same thing with freebags. I don't really see any weight in the idea that it leaves me open to any mals whatsoever. If you know of something that can contribute to a mal in this situation and not in any other setup mention, I would really like to know. I collect a lot of data on things like this and cannot see any factor that would be unique to this situation that would cause concern.

I think it is more of people being lazy on the paid packer side of things. When I started I paid for the sport packing and was doing 40+ a day. I used the rubber bands right for the occasion. Sure double wrapping is easier but I wanted to give them quality not a easy way out. Plus if packers use hand moisturizer during the day they will never have a problem. It might not be a manly thing but having torn up dry hurting hands sucks.

Your locking stows are the most important ones that they have good tension on them. The rest is mainly for organization and not critical or need the tension as much. If you look at your reserve freebag it works on this principle and it is completely reliable as it has been proven for years. Additionally, there are more and more main bags that are like this with just locking stows and the rest loosely held in a pouch. On my rig the locking stows are tight and the rest of stows can almost fall out. There has never been a indication of a problem in hundreds of jumps because it is working like the mentioned above. I have never figured out why people like double stowing. The parachute inflation is what you want slow, the lines unstowing isn't going to have an affect on the actual it. Plus your pilot chute creates a lot of force and a double stow is not going to slow it down.

Keep the history alive. I should get more energetic and take some photos of my gear on the ground. I have several sport containers from the 70's that were brand new old stock, same with a few canopies. I even have a brand new Delta II. I mean brand new, it has zero jumps.

It seems like the argument has more to do with worn velcro. I have no argument that velcro needs to be replaced on a regular basis but I don't agree with they require more maintenance than tuck tabs. Maybe on a regular basis but once the tuck tabs or stiffners break, I am spending more maintenance on them than I ever do on velcro. I have a sidewinder with a a few cracked stiffners and the amount of work I have to do on that is a lot more than the time I would put in to replace velcro on an Excalibur when is pretty much the same rig in many aspects. I still stand by what I said earlier. On a regular basis but on a overall I think they are about the same. I have done way too much maintenance on older gear to say it requires more.

I disagree with this statement. Maintenance is maintenance. You can't say that because it is old it is going to need more than newer. I maintain my 40+ vintage rigs and the parts and pieces are much easier to maintain than newer gear because the designs are so simple. It more depends on how it was cared for originally. There is some gear that is only a few years old that I wouldn't jump because of the poor overall condition. Associating age to maintenance is not a direct correlation. This is like any rig and if you look at the number of jumps people used to put on rigs compared to what they do now, you will see that most gear now will have a higher number of jumps and people are doing it without major problems that I have seen. I haven't seen much vintage gear with 1000's of jumps on it to have components wear out. I have had discussions with manufacturers about this topic and I realize that some of them want to put life spans on gear because of age. I have heard some of their views about it will help get rid of the ratty gear around but I think it is more of a business move. It is another bad correlation. I have a rig from the 1940's that is in great condition with no problems and I never hesitate if I want to jump it. I have canopies from the 50's and up that there is no problem with. Sure I have seen some ratty old gear but I have also seen ratty newer gearl. To me age shouldn't set off alarms. It should be the maintenance that should be looked at more. I am not saying that age doesn't have a factor in it but I think people put way too much emphasis on it when there are other factors that need more attention.

It doesn't matter how many copies of Poynter's book you have. They are never where you want them to be. At least my seven copies aren't where I want them to be ever.

A pull force gauge works a lot better and you get a very accurate reading from it. Sometimes you can pick them up on eBay cheap.

The quick loops on the Racer pilot chute can't (I mean shouldn't) be made by Rigger A's or Senior Rigger's. It is a TSO'd component on the container system and requires the factory or Master rigger or equivalent. I think Rob is referring to something else. Don't be building your own.

Here's a few more photos. I don't think they have been posted. I apologize in advance if there are some that have.

Are you serious or just joking around? You do know who John LeBlanc is?

I don't want to be part of this debate going on cause it doesn't affect me in slightest. But I would like to know what does the non TSO'd gear in the book have to do with the argument. I don't think they are hard to figure or find out as they are out in the open.

I am not saying this is the case here. But many companies end up releasing products that are inferior to previous models. I can't see a reason why they would do in intentionally but it does happen. How many test jumps on products have you done? I would like to know since you have not filled out a single thing in your profile. Have done many test jumps and have worked with companies, I know what goes into things. Your wrong about designing things. Usually it happens because of a single jump and then they start to improve and collect the data as needed. They don't release a product on a single jump. You can believe anything you want about me. I own UPT products. If it wasn't more for self interest, then answer me this. Is anybody or manufacturer allowed to use the design free of charge? There are things in skydiving out there that benefit the community that anybody can use without charge because these people wanted to benefit everyone and didn't want personal gain. All I want is some real data to make a decision on instead of a video that is going to highlight the product because it is from a manufacturer. Independent studies would solve much of the debates that skydivers have about gear. Really that is all I want. I doubt that is going to happen so I will continue to be objective in what I see instead of accepting everything on face value or because someone tells I should.

Hey at least you know which way its flying You have no idea how funny this comment is. Let's just say a recent test jump didn't go exactly as planned lol. But it was very interesting anyways.

Sure did and if it wasn't for all the great help and dedication from all of you there it would have never been possible. Can't wait till next year.

And I would say bring it on!

206 is my best in a week so far.

I don't think you are looking at the whole picture. Take what Nova was saying about it affecting DZ's and manufacturers. From your perspective it may be going strong but an incident can cause doors to close. Any door closing equals less growth. Look at the tandem fatality that is causing Strong all those problems. Do you think that could have an impact on the sport? Think outside your box and really look at what does happen. Your narrow thinking and attitude that fatalities will happen in the sport but it will be strong is naive.

I have nothing against Bill or Vectors. I own a Vector and a Wonderhog. If I was against it that much I wouldn't have them. What I want is people to actually bring real data to this argument and not go on feelings or opinions. Feelings or opinions mean nothing when trying to prove whether this whole thing is valid. Critical thinking on this matter is what should be done instead of jumping to conclusions.

I also jump a Wonderhog and a Vector II. That doesn't get entered into the equation does it. There are people who have never seen my Racers and others who haven't seen me under a square parachute. I am not a die hard Racer fan like you are making me out. I just want real information before coming to a conclusion.

A pilot chute with mesh and without act differently. Just because in this situation it took the pilot chute to inflate on its side doesn't mean that one with mesh would do worse or need to inflate on its side. Taking information from how one piece of equipment works and trying to base it on another is not going to give you a reliable answer. I was interested in why you felt that it would do better and was wondering if you had thought of something or had some information that wasn't apparent. You would have to take in all the factors. Saying the same burble, same launch angle, same hesitation doesn't really make the point. What if another pilot chute had a stronger or weaker spring, the launch would be different. The hesitation could be caused by the pilot chute design. This is just a few things. I don't know which one is better. But saying that this one inflated on its side therefore it is better doesn't mean a thing. Sure a meshed pilot chute doesn't do that but does it need to? I really want to get some real independent data to do a comparison. There are a lot of factors that people are messing up and transferring to another situation and coming to a conclusion. This is not a good way to come to a conclusion about things. Factors that affect one don't necessarily affect another. I would really like some real data to start appearing in stead of feelings.