Beatnik

Based on what?

While that is great you are talking about scientific accuracy. This video doesn't have it. Since most things in the US aren't metric and certainly weren't then, I doubt a metric altimeter was the only thing around. My point is still that using something that it outside what is normally done can be misleading and I am sure made some people look again. Anytime you are converting something there can be rounding errors and limited to the accuracy of the instruments used. Saying it has zero fudge factor is like saying the sun isn't bright. Sure you can convert all you want but do you round up at .49 or round down. Any one who works with numbers a lot knows there is things that can get fudged. In those countless reasons could be to also have an edge and use what people expect to their advantage. I am not saying it is here but your statement just gives another possibility. It really doesn't give a concrete reason. But to give what you said a fare chance, we should have the history of sales in that era cause saying you checked when it was RWS is vary vague and could have been right before the change.

I think it is silly to use an altimeter in meters when the standard in North America is feet (aviation wise). It also brings another factor into the data converting from meters to feet. That in turn creates a fudge factor where the results could be more pushed to a more or less favourable side. The neat thing about the video is the psychological aspect of it. If you don't catch that the altimeter is in meters, most likely you would assume feet. Since there is no frame of reference to the ground there is nothing to make you think otherwise, you would think that the product in question works extremely well and far exceeds the normal parameters. The video is a great example for marketing, psychologically speaking.

I agree with you that there could be reasons why the frames are missing. I can't see why anyone would film with PAL equipment in the US. So I think that can be eliminated. You make a good point about the first and last frame but now the question is, do we have the first and last frame? I am not implying things here are that way but your post seems to try to backup the information in the video. All possibilities should be considered not just ones that favour the equipment. So lets add the frames could have been pulled out of the video to show favourable information. If there is going to be a list made, might as well put all the variables in. Regarding your error correction post of 29m. I can't speak for anyone but it could be that number to compensate for the beginning as well. It really doesn't matter where it is factored in as long as it is in there. 29m = 95' It isn't exactly going overboard with a correction and seems reasonable to me at least. Regarding the altimeter, before we go overboard making assumptions about it. Maybe we should get the make and model along with the specifications before making assumptions about it. It would at least bring more information to this debate rather than messing it up.

You have a nice video of the pilot chute in action but concrete proof it is not. You have your company's interests in mind and won't release a video that damages the credibility of its products. The video it self talks about your pilot chute and compares it against meshed pilot chutes. For it to be used as proof or evidence that the pilot chute works as great as is mentioned, the data concerning the other pilot chute used should be available. Also, if only one type of pilot chute was used in comparison, then it hardly makes the point that the pilot chute is better than all other designs. I have done a lot of research for many different things (many none skydiving related things but the same principles apply) and while this is a nice video it would never be considered as proof to someone who understands the statistical errors that can be made in research. What I would like to see is an independent source evaluate pilot chutes and release what they discover. There has been some independent sources come forward previously that has brought forward results that are less than favourable and different than what others have claimed. That information I would be much more likely to believe. I have nothing against your pilot chute and have seen a lot of information outside your company regarding it as there is another manufacturer that uses it. That said I don't have things against a lot of gear but there is some that I like better than others, which I will not mention here. I do have an issue with things like this being submitted as proof that it is better than other designs when there really isn't anything proving that.

I am glad that I don't have that problem. Otherwise, I would have to shut down my dynamic museum.

I did a bunch of jumps on Pilots. They are overall a good canopy, especially for someone starting out. I don't have anything bad to say about them. I did notice that they have a shorter recovery than a Sabre 2 or Safire 2. I never found I had to dig deep for the flare. I found my Safire 2 had a softer and longer opening than the Pilot. This is just my experience with them.

I would email Al at Flying High and see if he can send them to you, since he was the one that had them done.

Al may have eliminated that with the Sidewinder but I don't believe that would be the reason for increased strength. I understand what you are saying and could see how it could cause a problem. Also, I am familiar with the reference. The direction of force there and how it is being transferred is less than ideal. But if the harness is articulated the loads are better directed even if the upper leg strap is there. That is really the beauty of the articulation, the forces are directed properly. I see what you are saying but I don't believe it is the reason. Unless I see some destructive test results from Jumpshack, which I don't think I will, I think they are just crunching numbers and believe the webbing is stronger than the hardware so having a harness without any is stronger. But that doesn't account for the direction of forces. This problem is something that I covered in first year engineering and understand it well.

The Sidewinder has the exact same harness as the Racer and I have no idea why a independent source would give information that wasn't true. So I am more willing to side with the destructive test results. However, I do find it interesting that they are saying the opposite and makes me wonder if they have done similar tests and what their results were.

It could but cotton is cheap, easy to work with and does the job. Which is probably why it is used.

I have several sets and one spare. I guess I can post a photo of one.

Al MacDonald runs Flying High and makes the Sidewinder rig in Alberta, Canada. When he started building articulated rigs he got it tested to destruction. As said above by Rob and myself the loads transfer more effectively and efficiently which make it stronger. Articulation allows for the load to be transferred over the entire surface of the webbing opposed to one side or another because of binding, particularly lower in the harness. For sure there is more work putting a harness together but from knowing engineering particularly to do with force transfer and statics, it makes complete sense and the destructive test results proved that as well.

If it is cotton the reason would be to absorb heat. Cotton is extremely good at that. That is why on the original rings and ropes canopies they used cotton. I have seen through personal use cordura bags damaged from heat and used cotton to reinforce the area and no more problem. I imagine that this is doing the same thing on the UPT bag.

This is the data I was referring to. I believe it was Al who told Sandy about the results. Al had destructive tests done at the University of Alberta (I believe) before having them as an option on his rigs. Before that I don't believe that was done.

I am not sure why articulation was developed. It may have been for comfort but the end result provided a stronger harness. Since loads are transferred different compared to a standard harness, I say it functions differently. It may be a small difference but there is one.

I am not saying that a standard harness is not more than strong enough but articulating it does ad some function. That is something a lot of people forget and just automatically associate hop rings with comfort. Which is how they are advertised and usually thought of. Which I am sure was why they were said to add comfort. Yes unfortunately I have seen what nicks in metal hardware have done to webbing.

The rest I agree with but this I don't. I think comfort is a secondary thing they add. Articulating a harness makes it stronger by being able to transfer loads more effectively. This was proven in destructive tests.

Just do a nice flip in the harness and problem solved. Many people have done that.

UPT never invented magnetic riser covers. Atair did and they have the patent for it. UPT was the first to use them AFAIK.

Do you even know what rig you are talking about? The Dolphins I have been packing hardly have any Velcro. So I really don't know what else to say about your post because I don't believe you know what rig you are talking about.

Can I ask why you are recommending not getting a Dolphin?

From what you have said then it seems that it is more design issues than any other factor. I could see how on smaller containers stiffness could contribute to issues but I would think that the material changing direction around the freebag and the associated forces required are causing the greater issue. With smaller containers the flaps have shorter distances to travel before they are completely open but depending on where stitching is on them it is (corners tacked, etc.) and there actually range of movement looks to have the greatest play in the equation. Adding additional things like stiffeners, material types, etc. is only contributing to the issue. Essentially the flaps on a container act like levers. With the exception of a class III lever, the mechanical advantage comes from applying forces from the furthest point from the fulcrum. When scaling it down like they were done, the forces were applied to close to it which would require greater forces to achieve the desired result. Which completely explains why a pilot chute smaller in diameter is desired to put force where it is required otherwise a complete redesign would be required to get them to function we will say more efficiently. While I believe and can see how stiffeners can start being a variable there, as well as other things mentioned early, I think these examples show the actual design is the biggest factor more than anything else. It stands to reason if you scale down a couple of components you should do the same with the others but that is not practical in manufacturing or desirable. Looking at this specific issue, I think we are both wrong with our thoughts on this. Well at least some part of it anyways. I can see how they contribute to the issue but they are more minor factors.

You got that right. The original was bad but that version gave more than a few laughs.

The type of material could be minor or major depending on the design. If you start padding all the flaps and use 1000 denier it is going to be heavier than 500 denier. I am sure depending on the situation could cause problems. I am not convinced that it is a minor problem but I am not convinced it is a major problem either but I am convinced it is a factor/ Now is the plastic stiffener being stiff causing the problem or the associated weight or both? If weight is contributing to it then the above does have merit. I honestly don't have an answer and I haven't seen any real research done on it, just experiences and they seem to differ and nothing completely concrete on a wide range of things. Thinking about it some more, some old containers have had some pretty stiff reinforced flaps that don't seem to have a real issue that we are seeing with newer designs. For example the 1950's seat pack I have has metal reinforcements in some of the flaps and it launches (all ground mind you) pretty darn good IMO. So I am wondering if it is a combination of a few things with this that is really causing the issue with this case more than the individual component. These is where some solid data from research would be handy. I completely agree with scaling causing issues. Most things that involve dynamic forces scaling doesn't work correctly. You can look at a lot of canopies for insistence, say you had a 200 sq. ft. and a 100 sq. ft. canopy. The 100 sq. ft. one would not be a perfect half scale model of the 200 sq. ft. one. There is usually a different setup to get it to fly correctly. It stands to reason other components would suffer similar issues as much other real life things do. Things seem to be very rarely linearly scaled off the drafting table. A question with the scaling problems you have encountered. Was it the container design or the pilot chute causing the issue? The reason I ask is cause you said that you cannot use the same pilot chute on narrower rigs. So I am just trying to understand if it was the rig that was causing the issue or the pilot chute. Personally I would believe that it was the rig scaling and design causing the issue and not the pilot chute.