JaapSuter

Because the signal to noise ratio is very high on both Blinc and DZ.com. One could argue this is a good thing. Now at least it'll take some effort to find information. It won't be long before information becomes so accessible that somebody that buys a rig on Ebay will actually have a decent chance of surviving a few jumps. Is Base For Dummies our future? Regardless, it would be great if many of the existing threads would move to a more controlled yet still interactive format. Something like a moderated wiki, where people can add comments to pages, and rate the quality. Then eventually the noise filters out. Blinc has some features that support that, but I find its interface too clumsy.

I'll spend some time in the loft this weekend and see what I can come up with. Maybe I'll be able to bring something experimental with me to the Memorial boogie. I'd be more than happy to leave them behind then. Cheers, Jaap

[url "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL"]and for those who overlook Veter's smiley[url]

Posted at 4:45 PM Edited at 4:47 PM That's two minutes! What are you? A beginner? On topic; what some people can't find in the bedroom, they'll try and find in base.

Various people have been thinking about doing this for his and other people's posts. Both Blinc and Dropzone contain an amazing number of great threads. Unfortunately there are certain copyright issues that need to be worked out. Last time I checked, neither Blinc or Dropzone mention copyright in their EULA, which as far as I know means the original author retains the copyright. But IANAL so we'll have to wait until Lawrocket joins us.

That's a very interesting point actually. Manufacturers should start selling "tune-lines". Basically your canopy comes with three sets of steering lines. One pair is blank with no brake settings put on. Two other pairs have five or six brake settings on them, the difference between the two pair would be an half-a-setting offset. You would take these "tune-lines" to a friendly object and jump them lots. Then once you figure out good brake settings, you grab your fresh set, have proper brake settings installed, and attach them to your canopy. I would happily pay a little more (not sure how much) for some "tune-lines". Come to think of it, I can easily make a couple myself at my local rigger's loft. I think I got good settings already though, so...

Somebody much more knowledgable and experienced than I was kind enough to point out the slider and the difficulties it would have coming down if there was an obstacle along the way. Duh... Not entirely unsolvable I suppose, but it voids my idea.

Hey Julien, sorry the birthday jump didn't work out. Great talking to you on the phone, and awesome to hear you had a good time. Will you keep that same phone number? I might give you a call next time I'm heading your way. Cheers, Jaap

Hey, has there been any experimenting with continous and field-movable brake settings? Instead of having fixed brake settings sewn on, you would have a brake line consisting of two parts. The upper part runs from the canopy down to a little fabric loop with a grommet in it. The lower part is about four feet long and attached to the upper part with a sliding knot. This lower part has one brake setting on it, and then runs down to another open end where you can use another sliding knot to attach the toggle. Advantages: Moving a brake-setting can be done in the field in very little time. Having one fixed and dedicated brake loop means manufacturers can spend time on strengthening them. Brake-settings have blown up in the past. Total continuous control over where you put your brake-settings, allowing for full customization in regards to wind conditions, object height, object shape, etcetera. Less labour for trying new brake-settings, meaning more people will actually spend time to tune them properly. Disadvantages: Requirements some sort of measuring and marking to remember where good brake settings are. Easier to screw up and create assymmetrical brake settings. A piece of fabric in the middle of your brake line with associated excess stows, which might cause problems when put in the tailpocket (tension knots?) Introduces extra complexity to the system. Maybe somebody can come up with a better system for continuous and field-movable brake settings. Alternatively, can somebody shoot this idea down because of some obvious problem I'm overlooking? Maybe it's just the fact that once properly tuned, people rarely need to change their brake settings. Thanks, Jaap Edit: In case this is a good idea then credit goes to RiggerRob and Dexterbase. If it's a stupid idea, then it was obviously entirely mine.

Just out of curiousity, do you care at all how important base is to a person? Independent of how serious somebody approaches the sport, people participate with varying levels of passion. For some it's their life and blood and the only thing they think about when they're awake. Others participate in other sports, care about a family, or get the same amount of enjoyment from juggling five balls. I'm always saddened when I meet hardcore skydivers who are missing out on so many other great things in life. However, maybe in base this is not such a bad thing considering how much more dangerous the sport is. Apologies if this is a highjack, feel free to move or delete.

Try picking up copies of the ABA yearly collections at www.basejump.org. The 2003 one contains great Dwain footage. I haven't seen the 2002 one, but I assume it contains more great Dwain stuff.

Ten years ago there were few skydivers that would do fuck all because the safety margins didn't allow it. Gear improvements (square reserves, three-rings, AADs, RSLs, Sky-hooks, etcetera) have brought skydiving to the point where even people without a survival attitude can manage to stay alive. It used to be a big deal when you had two hundred skydives. Now even two thousand isn't very much. You can see the same happen in base jumping too. I think that base jumpers of ten years ago were a lot more heads-up, mainly because the safety margins were smaller. Added safety allows for lesser capable to join. If bowling balls would explode when not handled carefully, different people would play the game. Of course, whether or not this is a good thing is up for debate. It seems that in both base and skydiving, gear and other safety improvements mitigate Darwinism. So far the balance holds and the yearly fatality rate remains consistent. Recently though, experienced base jumpers have begun to forecast an impending doom. As for my opinion in regards to skydiving experience requirements; I'd say most problems in the sport are caused by lack of fear, lack of respect, lack of common sense and lack of knowledge about base-history. No amount of skydiving experience is going to fix that. Edited to add to myself: I actually think the current state of affairs isn't nearly as bad as one just reading these forums might believe. The vast majority of base jumpers has great respect for the sport and strongly believes in contacting the locals wherever they go. It's just that all the good people have better things to do than post-whore on Dropzone.com

That should probably read "deep" brake setting, unless I misunderstood something. In that case, I will gladly delete this post and stand in the corner for inadvertedly thinking I know what I'm talking about.

Spending 30 minutes to an hour on another packjob will never kill you. Doing something that hasn't been sufficiently tested in the field might kill you. That would make it an easy choice for me. The way I read your message, you changed from slider up to slider down, but stowed the brakes on the shallow brake setting, is that correct? Note that there is more to packing slider down than just the difference between deep or shallow brake settings. Make sure that you route the brake line outside the keeper rings and the slider grommets so you can deal with line-over. If you were to do those things and tuck the extra slack in the tailpocket, I can see the following problems: The steering lines can do weird things inside the tailpocket, resulting in tension knots or possibly even fun entanglements with other lines The steering lines don't have line tension. This extra slack will create a much bigger shock-load on opening then usual. I don't think they'll brake, but it can't be too good either. Honestly, there are probably some experienced jumpers out there who would have no problem doing what you suggest. But considering an extra packjob will take little extra time, the choice would be easy for me. Unpack and take the opportunity to get one more practice packjob.

And for all you male purple haters, don't forget about magenta, the man-pink! What's in a name...

Yeah, it sucks. But I guess they would much rather see us use our middle-finger on the existing illegal sites than risking tolerance at currently legal sites. I only know a tiny fraction of base history, but I think Jan, Jeff, Frank and Dennis would prefer to see us jump their Cap legally rather than see another hundred years of clandestine risk-taking. Correct me if I'm wrong. If and when that happens, regulations will come from a grey area. Some will be happy, others will be pissed off. Unfortunately I don't think concessions will be entirely avoidable. It is up to the base community to make sure regulation is put on solid ground and not on a slippery slope straight into the arms of an FAA regulated base association.

Here's a little Eurotrash one-on-one. Unfortunately Queer Eye for a Straight Guy and the Metrosexual craze ruined it for everybody, but that doesn't mean the Jazz don't matter... First of all, if that's a three button jacket, lose it and find one with two buttons. Then, dress up the way it's supposed to be. That means; tucked in and buttoned up except for the last one (the one you would do if you'd have a tie on). This puts you at average. Now you need to add the Jazz to spice it up. My recommendation is to untuck one side and leave the other side tucked in. Make sure the back stays tucked in! This is really important, otherwise a large flap will hang from under your jacket over your ass making it look like you're wearing old-fashioned payamas. This is especially important if you're wearing vertical stripes (but who would wear horizontal stripes anyway). So with one side on the front untucked, this is going to nonchalantly appear underneath the jacket in the front. This is good. It puts you in the "I want to look good, but not spend too much time on it." camp. Of course, everybody will realize that you actually did spend a lot of time on it, but that's how it works with dressing well. Now depending on your clothing tradition and your chest, you could undo another button at the top. Never do this if you wear a necklace. For men, necklaces should be little suprises not found until you undress. That goes for all you people wearing closing pins too! If the fabric on your jacket is thin enough, another way to Jazz it up is to roll up one sleeve and roll the shirt over it. Keep it below the elbow, and make sure you don't create a donut roll! Anyway, that's just my advice. Keep the following in mind: Going by the book puts you at average. You need to Jazz it up to stand out. If you Jazz too much out of line with your past, you'll stand out so much people will laugh. Never dress to impress others. Dress to make yourself feel good. Assymetry in clothing is good. Good looking people have symmetrical faces and bodies, and assymetrical clothing will only offset this upping the Jazz ante... Don't let anybody ever tell you that you dressed up too much. When in doubt, dress up.

The one big difference between now and twenty years ago is the number of base-jumpers. If only three jumpers land in your corn-field every year, you won't care much considering it's only them crazy 'stunt-people' anyway. On the other hand, if every weekend you get twenty people landing in and trampling your grass, the stunt image is quickly replaced with a regular sport image. This obviously changes the way locals will accomodate you. I love sticking it to the man as much as you, but we're all sharing the same planet, jumper and non-jumpers. When we land on high grass, we ruin it. Grass is a sought-after commodity in Switzerland, because so few fields are flat enough to mow. When we recklesly cut trees at an exit-point, we are breaking things that were there long before us. When we bounce in front of a local audience, we temporarily traumatize at least a few people. If one can jump illegally without breaking and harming anything, go for it! But as the number of jumpers grows there will have to be regulation to minimize the impact. Let's just hope we never need a governing body. It is in our best interest to keep these simple local requests a local affair. In my opinion, it's when we stop respecting the simple requests that we set ourselves up for bigger trouble and goverment regulation. Jaap "I hope I didn't misunderstand you Nick" Suter

It's only because GirlFallDown is dyslectic that I'm now sending get-well carrots instead of cards. I agree that it's not very manly, but I don't want to be the guy to stop a tradition...

Oops, my bad. Sorry. So Vertigo has made three canopies? Dragon - Made by PD Dagger - Made by PD or Precision? Rock Dragon - Made by Precision

I believe this was the "Dagger". Their new canopy is called the Rock Dragon, and is manufactured by Precision Aerodynamics iirc.

I'm a beginner in both skydiving and base, so take this with a grain of salt... It depends on what you mean by "ground hungry". If you are talking about strict vertical descent rate then I believe wingloading is the main factor, followed closely by canopy shape. Considering people load base canopies as low as .6, whereas skydivers go as high as 2.2, this easily explains why base canopies descend slower. I bet though, that if you took a base-canopy and made a 120 square foot version, its vertical fall rate would be about the same as the average 120 square foot skydiving canopy. Now if by "ground hungry" you mean the glide-angle (meaning the ratio between forward-speed and fall-speed) I would say that base canopies are more ground hungry than skydiving ones. Most base canopies are designed to have a much steeper glide angle. This allows you to put them down in tight and confined landing areas. The glide-angle factor is more determined by the canopy trim and shape, and much less so by its actual wingloading. I think that if you made a 120 square foot base canopy, it would still have a much different glide angle compared to the 120 square foot skydiving canopy. Hopefully somebody that knows what he's talking about will join us and correct me.

What makes you think I still have them on? I always sit at my desk with my pants wrapped around my ankles.

No kidding! North America is where it's at for sure. I left Holland as soon as possible too...